;  \  ,\:r- . 

-  •  1 

'■yf  \   ' . 

\ 

/ .' 

Ex  Libris 
C.  K.  OGDEN 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  CENTURY  BIBLE 


ST.  MARK 


THE   CENTURY    BIBLE 

GENESIS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 
EXODUS,  by  the  Kev.  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 
LEVITICUS  AND  NUMBERS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  M.A., 

D.D. 
DEUTERONOMY     and    JOSHUA,     by    the     Rev.     Prof.    H.    Wheeler 

Robinson,  M.A. 
JUDGES  AND  RUTH,  by  the  Rev.  Principal  G.  W.  Thatcher,  M.A.,  B.D. 
I  AND  II  SAMUEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  M.A.,  D.D. 
I  AND  II  KINGS,  by  the  Rev.  Principal  Skinner,  D.D. 
i  AND  II  CHRONICLES,  by  the  Rev.  W.  Harvev-Jellie,  M.A.,  B.D. 
EZRA,  NEHEMIAH,  and  ESTHER,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  T.  Witton  Davies, 

B.A.,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
JOB,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 

PSALMS  (Vol.  I)  I  TO  LXXII,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Davison,  M.A.,  D.D. 
PSALMS  (Vol.  II)  LXXIII  TO  END,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  T.  Witton  Davies, 

l!.A.,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
PROVERBS,    ECCLESIASTES,    and    SONG    OF    SOLOMON,    by    the 

Rev.  G.  Clkrie  Martin,  M.A.,  B.D. 
ISAIAH  I-XXXIX,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  Owen  C.  Whitehouse,  M.A.,  D.D. 
ISAIAH  XL-LXVI,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Owen  C.  Whitehou.se,  M.A.,  D.D. 
JEREMIAH  (Vol.  I),  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 
JEREMIAH  (Vol.   II),  and  LAMENTATIONS,   by  the  Rev.   Prof.  A.   S. 

Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 
EZEKIEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  W.  F.  Lofthouse,  M.A. 
DANIEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  R.  H.  Charles,  D.D. 
MINOR  PROPHETS:  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  Micah,  by 

the  Kev.  R.  F.  Hokton,  M.A.,  D.D. 
MINOR     PROPni';TS:      Nahum,     Habakkuk,     Zei'haniah,     Hacgai, 

Zechariah,  Malachi,  by  the  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 

MATTHEW,  Revised  Edition  by  the  Rev.  Prof  G.  H.  Box,  M.A.,  D.D. 
M.ARK,  Revised  Edition  by  the  Rev.  Prof  J.  Vernon  Bartlet,  M.A.,  D.D. 
LUKE,  Revised  Edition  by  the  Rev.  Principal  W.  F.  Adenev,  M.A.,  D.D. 
JOHN,  Revised  Edition  by  the  Right  Kev.  J.  A.  McClvmont,  C.B.E.,  D.D. 
ACTS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  J.  Vernon  Bartlet,  M.A.,  D.D. 
ROMANS,  by  the  Rev.  Principal  A.  E.  Garvie,  M.A.,  D.D. 
1  AND  II  CORINTHIANS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  J.  Massie,  M.A.,  D.D. 
EPHESIANS,     COLOSSIANS,     PHILEMON,    PHILIPPIANS,    by    the 

Rev.  G.  CuRRiE  Martin,  M.A.,  B.D. 
I  AND  II  THESSALONIANS,  GALATIANS,  by  the  Rev.  Principal  \V.  F. 

AuENEV,  M.A.,  D.D. 
THIC  PASTORAL  EPISTLES,  by  the  Rev.  R.  F.  Horton,  M.A.,  D.D. 
HEBREWS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 
THE  GENERAL  EPISTLES,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D., 

D.D. 
REVELATION,  by  the  Rev.  Prof  C.  Anderson  Scott,  M.A.,  B.D. 


X  r  3:u^i) 


General  Editor:    Prof.  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A.,  D.D. 

^t  (TUftrft 

INTRODUCTION 

REVISED   VERSION   WITH    NOTES 

INDEX  AND    MAP 

edited  by 

J.  VERNON  BARTLET,  M.A.,  D.D. 

TROFESSOR    IN    MANSFIELD    COLLF,GE,    OXFORD 

ON  THE    BASIS    OF   THE    EARLIER    EDITION 
BY 

S.  D.  F,  SALMON D,  D.D. 


/^ElV  AND  ENLARGED   EDIIION 


EDINBURGH  :  T.  C.  &  E.  C.  JACK,  LTD. 

1922 


PRrNTED    IN    CKtAT    BRITAIN    AT 
THE   IRESS   or  THK   ITBUSHEKS. 


c<^ 


PREFATORY   NOTE 

A  WORD  of  explanation  seems  called  for  as  to  the 
larger  scale  upon  which  the  notes  on  St.  Mark  are 
written  as  compared  with  the  companion  Gospels  in 
this  series.  The  fact  is  that  the  literary  relations  be- 
tween the  first  three  Gospels  in  virtue  of  which  they 
are  called  '  synoptic ',  and  which  constitute  what  is 
called  '  The  Synoptic  Problem  ',  appeared  to  demand 
that  somewhere  in  these  Commentaries  those  relations 
and  certain  topics  bound  up  with  them  should  be 
dealt  with  somewhat  systematically  and  fully.  But  if 
so,  the  Commentary  on  St.  Mark  \Yas  the  most  con- 
venient place.  For  St.  Mark  is  the  fundamental 
extant  document  for  the  })roblem  in  question,  con- 
taining as  it  does  most  of  the  Synopsis  or  general  ^■iew 
of  Jesus'  earthly  ministry,  particularly  that  in  Galilee, 
common  to  the  first  three  Gospels :  and  further  the 
very  fact  that  it  is  the  shortest  of  the  three  allowed 
more  easily  of  this  extra  matter,  as  well  as  of  some 
extended  discussion  of  other  topics  of  historical 
interest  (mostly  dealt  with  in  Added  Notes),  being 
included  in  this  volume,  without  its  running  to  excessive 

'"'*•  1104797 


The  Revised  VERSioisr  is  printed  by  pervii<:von 
of  the   Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Editor's  Introduction  .......         i 

Text  of  the  Revised  Version  with  Annotations      .       73 
I'-^DEX 455 

MAP 
Palestine Facinsr  title 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  MARK 

INTRODUCTION 


6 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  MARK 


INTRODUCTION 

'  A  SUCCESSION  of  pictures  in  which  a  painter  repre- 
sents a  complete  history  or  rather  his  interpretation  of  a 
unique  person  and  his  mission  on  earth.'  This  description 
of  the  first  three  Gospels  fairly  expresses  what  they  are. 
And  of  the  three  'the  Cartoons  of  St,  Mark,'  as  Dr.  Horton 
has  happily  phrased  it,  with  their  Giotto-like  simplicity  and 
vividness,  present  us  with  the  most  primitive  and  elemental 
of  the  extant  interpretations  of  the  Gospel  in  terms  of  the 
Person  in  whom  it  came  from  God  to  men.  Further,  that 
Mark's  Gospel  is  the  ground-sketch  of  the  evangelical 
narratives  generally,  and  that  it  forms  a  controlling  factor 
in  their  affinities  as  to  incidents,  order  of  narration,  and 
even  verbal  style,  is  the  opinion  now  generally  entertained 
by  scholars.  This  means  that  it  is  looked  at  now  from 
a  new  point  of  view  and  assumes  a  fresh  importance, 
especially  for  the  historian  and  all  who  prize  most  chiefly 
the  original  impression  left  by  the  sheer  historic  facts  upon 

the  actual  witnesses  of  Him  who 

wrought 
With  human  hands  the  creed  of  creeds, 
In  loveliness  of  perfect  deeds 
More  strong  than  all  poetic  thought. 

The  change  of  sentiment  which  has  taken  place  on  the 
subject  of  the  Second  Gospel  is  indeed  one  of  the  most 
notable  facts  in  the  history  of  New  Testament  studies  in 
our  day.  In  ancient  times  little  was  made  of  this  Gospel 
in  comparison  with  its  longer  and  fuller  companions.  Its 
genius  was  not  sufficiently  understood.  Its  special  value 
was  not  adequately  recognized.  Thus  Augustine  could 
speak  of  Mark  as  only  the  '  follower  and  abbreviator  of 


4  ST.  MARK 

Matthew,'  and  while  many  minds  occupied  themselves 
with  continuous  exposition  of  its  fellows,  few  seem  to  have 
done  the  like  for  this  shortest  of  the  Gospels. 

Now,  however,  all  this  is  changed.  It  is  seen  to  have 
quite  a  distinct  character,  and  to  stand  in  a  remarkable 
relation  to  the  other  Gospels.  Yet  this  Gospel  alone 
admits  of  examination  apart  from  any  other,  although  we 
can  see  much  more  in  it  and  behind  it  by  comparison  with 
the  others  also.  It  is,  therefore,  the  proper  beginning  of 
any  study  of  the  Jesus  of  history,  as  well  as  the  Christ  of 
the  Church's  faith.  Much,  then,  depends  upon  the  esti- 
mate we  form  of  it  and  the  way  in  which  we  use  it.  Unless 
we  begin  with  this  Gospel  according  to  Mark  and  study 
well  its  pregnant  words,  we  shall  not  be  in  the  best  position 
for  looking  into  the  very  face  of  Him  who  is  the  central 
figure  in  all  the  Gospels. 

I.    Mark's  Gospel  in  the  Ancient  Church. 

A  chain  of  witnesses  connects  this  Gospel  with  the 
earliest  times,  and  speaks  for  the  position  which  it  had  in 
the  ancient  Church.  There  is  historical  testimony  that  it 
was  in  circulation  before  the  close  of  the  first  century, 
and  that  by  the  year  A.D.  150  it  had  an  established  place. 
It  appears  in  the  most  ancient  versions  of  the  NewTesta- 
ment— Old  Latin,  Syriac,  and  Egyptian — and  in  the  early 
lists  of  canonical  books  which  come  down  to  us  from  both 
branches  of  the  Church,  Eastern  and  Western.  There  is 
little  evidence  of  its  existence,  it  is  true,  in  the  writings  of 
the  Apostolic  Fathers.  But  this  is  not  strange,  consider- 
ing the  nature  of  those  writings  and  the  fact  that  so  much  of 
the  Evangelic  matter,  both  history  and  teaching,  is  com- 
mon to  two  or  more  of  our  first  three  Gospels,  thence  called 
'  Synoptic  *,  as  containing  the  same  general  picture 
{synopsis).  All  that  can  here  be  said  is  that  apart  from 
the  explicit  reference  to  Mark's  Gospel  (see  §  3)  in  Papias 
of  Hierapolis  {c.  A.D.  115-130),  who  lived  on  a  main  road 


INTRODUCTION  5 

between  Syria  ana  Ephesus,  and  near  to  Colossae,  it  is 
probably  used  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  (about  A.D.  140) 
and  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  (a.  D.  140-160).  Justin 
speaks  of  James  and  John  as  '  Boanerges,  which  is,  Sons 
of  thunder,'  and  of  Christ  as  'the  carpenter,'  as  only 
Mark  does  (iii.  17,  vi.  3),  and  he  seems  even  to  know 
Mark  xvi.  20  (Apol.  i.  45) — its  later  ending  (see  p.  43). 

When,  however, we  come  to  Irenteus  (125-200),  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  we  have  witness  both  copious  and  unambiguous. 
He  has  much  to  say  both  of  the  writer  and  of  the 
book.  He  gives  a  number  of  passages  in  exact  terms,  and 
quotes  the  opening  verse  as  Mark's.  We  have  similar 
testimonies,  more  or  less  definite,  in  the  Muratorian 
Canon,  TertuUian,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Hippolytus, 
Eusebius  the  Church  Historian,  &c.,  extending  from  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century  to  the  early  pare  of  the 
fourth.  Hippolytus's  reference  to  Mark's  Gospel  is  particu- 
larly interesting  and  instructive,  suggesting  as  it  does  that 
its  special  nature  as  contrasted  with  Matthew  and  Luke 
was  something  of  a  hindrance  to  its  full  recognition,  such 
a  hindrance  indeed  as  only  the  strongest  external  evidence 
to  its  quasi-apostolic  authority,  as  based  on  Peter's  recol- 
lections, could  have  overcome  so  completely.  Arguing 
against  Marcion  [Against  Heresies,  vii.  30),  Hippolytus 
urges  that  'neither  Paul  the  Apostle  nor  Mark  the  curt- 
fingered  related  such  doctrines,'  where  the  epithet  given 
to  the  Evangelist  (as  the  context  demands,  see  Journal  0/ 
Theological  Studies,  vi.  I23f.)  is  best  taken  metaphori- 
cally as  referring  to  the  nature  of  his  Gospel  itself.  It 
suffered,  that  is,  from  appearing  '  curtailed,'  as  compared 
with  its  completer  fellows,  especially  at  its  extremities— the 
beginning  and  ending  of  its  story. 

From  various  sources  we  gather  also  that  the  Second 
Gospel  was  known  to  the  Gnostic  and  other  early  heretical 
schools  (e.g.  to  the  author  of  The  Gospel  of  Peter,  early 
in  the  second  century).  Further,  this  Gospel  has  always 
a  place   in   the  list  of  the  four  Gospels,  when  such  are 


6  ST.   MARK 

mentioned.  The  description  of  the  Gospel  as  '  the  four- 
fold Gospel'  takes  us  back  to  Irenaeus,  and  in  all  proba- 
bility to  a  still  earlier  period  ;  for  the  idea  of  harmonizing 
the  four  narratives,  and  the  formation  of  harmonies  of  the 
Gospels,  come  into  clear  view  at  least  by  the  time  of 
Tatian  the  Assyrian  (a  contemporary  of  Justin).  In  all 
these  connexions  Mark's  Gospel  makes  one  of  the  four. 
Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  suppose  that,  when  it  is  referred 
to  or  used,  any  other  writing  is  intended  than  the  one  that 
has  come  down  to  us.  Some  indeed  have  imagined  that 
our  Mark  is  not  the  original  Mark,  but  a  second  form,  on 
the  basis  of  a  still  more  primitive  record.  But  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  such  primary  edition  in  ancient  literature  ; 
nor  do  the  facts  presented  by  the  Gospel  require  us  to 
regard  it  as  a  secondary  version  of  a  simpler  narrative. 

2.    Authorship. 

This  Gospel  is  really  anonymous.  Though  our  earliest 
MSS.  have  a  title  assigning  it  to  '  Mark,'  its  own  text  says 
nothing  of  its  origin.  It  gives  little  or  no  indication,  even 
indirectly,  of  the  hand  that  composed  it.  In  determining 
its  authorship  we  have  to  depend  mainly  on  tradition,  and 
that  connects  it  with  Mark,  the  disciple  and  friend  of  Peter. 

Not  a  few  of  the  testimonies  which  speak  of  the  circula- 
tion of  this  writing  speak  also  of  its  author  as  Mark. 
Who  then  is  this  Mark?  The  disciple  who  appears  under 
that  name  in  the  New  Testament,  and  whose  primary  or 
Jewish  name  was  John,  as  we  learn  from  Acts  xii.  12.  In  the 
New  Testament,  too,  he  appears  in  relation  both  to  Peter 
and  to  Paul,  at  different  stages  in  his  career.  Further, 
in  the  New  Testament  his  connexion  is  mostly  with  Paul, 
and  his  relation  to  Peter  is  subsidiary  ;  while  in  tradition 
he  is  associated  chiefly  with  Peter,  and  his  relation  to 
Paul  passes  into  the  background.  But  it  is  the  general 
view  that  the  various  references,  however  different  in  terms, 
are  to  one  and  the  same  person,  the  kinsman  of  Barnabas. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

On  this  supposition  we  know  something,  though  not 
verymuchjof  the  reputed  author  of  this  Gospel.  He  is  the 
person  sometimes  called  simply  Mark  or  Marcus  (Acts  xv. 
39  ;  Col.  iv.  10  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  11  ;  Philem.  24;  i  Pet.  v.  13), 
sometimes  John  (Acts  xiii.  5,  13),  sometimes  'John  whose 
surname  was  Mark'  (Acts  xii.  25)  or  'John,  who  was 
called  Mark'  (Acts  xv.  37).  In  the  Gospel  itself 
there  is,  indeed,  no  explicit  reference  to  him :  but  it  is 
natural  to  identify  him  with  the  young  man  who  followed 
Jesus  on  the  night  of  the  betrayal,  '  having  a  linen  cloth 
cast  about  him,  over  his  naked  body'  (ch.  xiv.  51,  52). 
The  episode  is  chronicled  only  in  this  Gospel  ;  and  if  it 
has  not  the  meaning  just  suggested,  as  a  hint  that  the 
author  was  himself  present  at  the  crisis  in  question,  it  is 
not  easy  to  see  why  it  should  have  been  brought  in. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  however,  we  get  some  clear  informa- 
tion from  the  Book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  In  Acts 
Mark  comes  before  us  first  in  connexion  with  the  story  of 
Peter's  deliverance  (ch.  xii.  12).  We  see  him  as  the  son 
of  a  certain  Mary,  a  lady  of  some  means  and  station,  who 
had  a  house  in  Jerusalem  in  which  Christians  gathered  for 
prayer  and  to  which  the  Apostle  at  once  turned.  From 
Col.  iv.  10,  '  Mark,  the  cousin  of  Barnabas,'  we  learn  that 
this  Mary  was  aunt  to  the  latter,  either  by  blood  or 
marriage.  Mark  is  next  mentioned  as  having  been  taken 
by  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Antioch,  after  their  visit  to 
Jerusalem  with  the  relief  sent  by  the  disciples  to  the 
distressed  brethren  in  Judaea  (ch.  xii.  25).  Then  we  see 
him  accompanying  Barnabas  and  Paul  as  'their  attendant' 
on  their  first  missionary  journey,  but  breaking  off  at  Perga 
in  Pamphylia  and  returning  to  Jerusalem,  while  they  went 
on  to  the  Pisidian  Antioch  (ch.  xiii.  3,  13,  14)-  ^^e  are 
not  told  why  he  took  this  step.  Probably  it  was  connected 
in  some  way  with  a  change  in  the  programme  of  the 
journey  as  originally  contemplated,  due  most  likely  to 
Paul  and  his  bolder  ideas  as  to  the  Gospel  among  the 
Gentiles.     In  any  c.ise  it  so  shook  Paul's  confidence  in 


8  ST.  MARK 

him  that,  though  Barnabas  wished  to  take  Mark  with 
them  again,  when  it  was  proposed  to  revisit  the  churches, 
he  refused.  This  estrangement,  however,  was  afterwards 
healed,  and  Mark  reappears  in  the  story  of  Paul's  later 
career.  He  is  with  Paul  at  the  time  of  his  Roman 
imprisonment  (Col.  iv.  lo ;  Philem.  24) ;  and  somewhat 
later  the  Apostle,  left  alone  but  for  Luke,  asks  Timothy  to 
bring  Mark  with  him  as  one  '  useful  to  him  for  ministering ' 
(2  Tim.  iv.  11).  Like  Barnabas,  he  was  a  Jew  by  birth  ; 
and  he  stood  in  a  peculiarly  close  relation  to  Peter,  the 
latter  speaking  of  him  as  his  *  son,'  probably  in  the  sense 
of  a  spiritual  junior  with  whom  he  had  personal  ties  of 
affection  (i  Pet.  v.  13). 

This  account  of  the  author  of  the  Second  Gospel  receives 
enlargement  outside  the  New  Testament.  There  he  is 
described  as  Peter's  companion  (in  Rome);  as  an  evangelist; 
as  the  founder  of  the  Alexandrian  Church  and  its  first 
bishop ;  and  in  the  later  forms  of  this  legend  he  is  repre- 
sented as  suffering  martyrdom  at  Alexandria.  The  place 
where  he  was  supposed  to  be  buried  became  a  favourite 
shrine,  visited  by  pilgrims  for  centuries.  Early  in  the 
ninth  century  his  reputed  remains  were  removed  by  some 
merchants  to  Venice.  There  the  great  cathedral  church 
was  built  in  his  honour.  He  became  the  patron  saint  of 
Venice,  and  the  emblem  of  the  lion,  which  had  been 
mistakenly  assigned  to  him  by  Christian  art,  was  taken  as 
the  armorial  ensign  of  the  Venetian  Senate. 

3.    Relation  of  the  Writer  to  Peter. 

The  main  point  in  ancient  tradition,  however,  which 
speaks  of  Mark  as  author,  is  the  fact  that  it  also  asso- 
ciates him  with  Peter  in  the  matter  of  the  Gospel.  The 
tradition  is  very  old,  and  in  the  main  remarkably  consis- 
tent. It  goes  back  to  Papias,  and  is  continued  by  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Hippolytus,  Ter- 
tuliian,  Origen,    Eusebius,   Jerome,  &c.     It    appears    in 


INTRODUCTION  9 

difTerent  forms,  at  first  simple,  and  then  more  definite  and 
more  complex. 

Papias  (as  cited  in  Eusebius,  Church  History,  iii.  39) 
summarizes  the  effect  of  what  the  Presbyter  John  '  used  to 
say  '  about  Mark's  Gospel  as  follows  : — '  Mark,  having 
been  Peter's  interpreter  {hermeneuies),  wrote  accurately, 
yet  not  in  order,  all  that  he  called  to  mind — the  things 
either  said  or  done  by  the  Christ.  For  neither  did  he 
hear  the  Lord  nor  was  he  His  personal  follower,  but  later 
on  that  of  Peter,  as  I  said  ;  and  he  used  to  shape  his  in- 
structions to  the  occasion,  but  not  as  if  making  an  ordered 
collection  of  the  Lord's  sayings.  So  that  Mark  was  in  no 
way  at  fault  in  writing  certain  {lit.  some)  things  just  as  he 
recalled  them.  For  of  one  thing  he  made  a  careful  point, 
not  to  omit  anything  of  what  he  had  heard  or  to  falsify 
any  feature  thereof.'  Here  the  term  'interpreter'  is 
of  uncertain  meaning,  but  is  best  taken  in  the  sense  of 
dragoman.  This  is  borne  out  by  Papias's  use  of  the  verbal 
form  of  the  word  'interpret'  in  another  extract  which 
Eusebius  proceeds  to  give.  '  Matthew,  then,  compiled 
{lit.  "wrote  together")  the  Oracles  in  Hebrew  speech : 
but  each  interpreted  them  according  to  his  ability.' 
Similarly  Mark's  function  would  be  that  of  rendering  the 
Apostle  Peter's  vernacular  Aramaic  into  Greek,  for  Greek 
converts. 

The  facts  presented  by  the  Gospel  correspond  very 
fairly  with  this.  It  has  been  argued,  indeed,  that  the 
writing  as  we  now  have  it  does  not  answer  to  Papias's 
description  of  the  writing  as  '  not  in  order.'  But  all 
depends  on  what  sort  of  '  order '  Papias  had  in  mind.  What 
is  his  standard  of  comparison  in  the  matter  }  Some  think 
the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew.  But  this  does  not,  as 
Dr.  Menzies  shews  {The  Earliest  Gospel,  pp.  47 f.),  suit 
the  extract  as  a  whole,  which  on  the  other  hand  is  satisfied 
in  all  respects  by  the  theory  that  Papias  had  in  mind  the 
tradition  current  in  the  name  of  John  (though  not  yet, 
when  the  Presbyter  was  speaking,  in  a  written  Gospel), 


lo  ST.  MARK 

who  was  the  great  Apostolic  authority  in  the  region  of 
Ephesus,  not  far  from  which  Papias  lived  and  wrote.  And 
our  Mark  deviates  most  strikingly  from  the  order  and 
contents  of  that  Gospel. 

Papias's  evidence  is  very  early,  since  it  virtually  em- 
bodies the  facts  as  to  our  Mark's  origin  as  known  to  John 
the  Presbyter,  a  personal  disciple  of  Jesus,  who  survived 
to  the  close  of  the  first  century.  Justin  Martyr,  writing 
about  A.  D.  150,  confirms  it  in  so  far  as  he  refers  to  this 
Gospel  as  in  substance  Peter's  '  recollections,'  without 
naming  an  author  {Dial.  106).  Irenasus  {c.  1 80)  also 
says  of  Mark  that  he  '  committed  to  writing  the  things 
preached  by  Peter,'  adding  that  he  did  so  after  the  death 
of  Peter  and  Paul.  Tradition  at  Alexandria,  as  known  to 
Clement  {c.  200),  enlarges  this,  stating  that  when  Peter 
had  preached  in  Rome  many  urged  Mark  to  write  down 
what  had  been  thus  spoken,  and  that  Peter  '  neither  for- 
bad nor  encouraged  it.'  Eusebius,  who  reports  this 
tradition  in  his  History  of  the  Church  (vi.  14),  quotes 
Clement  in  another  passage  (ii.  15)  as  speaking  of  the 
Apostle  as  ''authorizing  the  writing  for  reading  among  the 
churches.'  Finally,  the  Muratorian  Fragment^  of  the 
age  of  Clement,  if  not  even  earlier,  has  half  a  mutilated 
sentence  seemingly  tracing  Mark's  Gospel  to  its  author's 
hearing  of  certain  (not  all)  of  Peter's  addresses.  The  tradi- 
tion, therefore,  varies,  and  in  course  of  time  becomes  more 
developed  and  reflective.  But  the  general  view  which  it 
gives  of  the  Gospel  is  that  of  a  composition  written  by 
Mark  on  the  basis  of  Peter's  discourses,  and  giving  a 
faithful  report  of  the  Apostle's  recollections  of  the  words 
and  deeds  of  the  Lord. 

Our  Mark  quite  fits  in  with  the  view  given  of  it  by 
tradition.  The  general  character  of  its  narrative,  so  life- 
like and  circumstantial  for  the  most  part,  in  the  case  even 
of  small  things,  points  to  an  eye-witness  as  directly  or  indi- 
rectly its  author.  There  are  many  touches  in  it  that 
indicate  first-hand  knowledge,  and  such  first-hand  know- 


INTRODUCTION  ii 

ledge  as  Peter  would  have.  It  alone  tells  us  that  '  Simon 
and  they  that  were  with  him  followed  after'  Jesus  when  he 
withdrew  to  a  solitary  place  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry 
(ch.  i.  36)  ;  that  it  was  he  also,  with  his  brother  and  the 
sons  of  Zebedee,  who  asked  him  on  the  Mount  of  Olives 
about  the  destruction  of  the  temple  (ch.  xiii.  3).  Other 
things  too  which  it  records— though  the  other  Synoptics 
have  them  also,  probably  borrowing  from  it— are  things 
immediately  concerning  Peter,  and  such  as  would  be  per- 
sonally known  to  him  (e.  g.  i.  29  ff.).  Things  in  which 
Peter  played  a  leading  part,  often  not  to  his  credit,  enter 
largely  into  the  narrative  (esp.  viii.  32  f.,  ix.  5  f.,  x.  28,  xiv. 
29-31,  66-72).  Narratives  like  those  of  the  raising  of  the 
daughter  of  Jairus,  the  Transfiguration,  and  the  Agony, 
have  details  and  peculiarities,  as  given  by  Mark,  which 
suggest  immediate  knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  and 
such  a  knowledge  as  Peter,  an  actor  in  all  these  scenes, 
would  have  had.  There  are  certain  resemblances  also 
between  the  style  of  this  Gospel  and  that  of  Peter,  as  seen 
in  his  discourses  in  the  Acts  and  in  his  Epistle.  These 
things  may,  indeed,  come  short  of  proving  the  Gospel  to 
have  the  origin  suggested.  But  they  suit  very  well  the 
account  of  it  which  has  been  transmitted  to  us  from  early 
in  the  second  century.  If  it  is  urged,  as  it  is  by  certain 
recent  writers  (e.g.  B.  W.  Bacon,  The  Begmnings  of  the 
Gospel  Story,  Introduction,  passim),  that  there  are  other 
features  in  this  Gospel  which  point  to  the  hand  of  a  re- 
dactor who  had  no  personal  touch  with  Peter,  but  belonged 
rather  to  the  next  generation  of  the  Church's  life,  the 
phenomena  alleged  as  proof  of  this  are  often  capable  of  a 
simpler  reading  and  explanation  than  that  so  given  them, 
and  are  in  the  main  such  as  may  well  be  due  to  Mark 
himself. 

4.    'The  Gospel'  and  the  Gospels. 

We  have  now  to  ask,  What  was  the  original  notion  of 
a  Gospel  ?    How  came  it  to  be  so  named  1    To  begin  with, 


12  ST.  MARK 

our  writing,  like  its  fellows,  bore  originally  no  title  other 
than  one  referring  to  its  authorship,  'According  to  Mark.' 
But  its  opening  words  give  the  key  to  the  origin  of  its 
later  description.  It  is  '  a  Gospel'  because  it  embodies 
'the  Gospel  {Evangel)  of  Jesus  Christ,'  that  is,  the  '  Good 
news  '  brought  by  Jesus  as  God's  Anointed  One  {Messiah 
in  Hebrew,  Christ  in  Greek).  And  it  was  'according  to 
Mark,'  because  it  contained  that  form  of  the  glad  story 
which  had  shaped  itself,  thus  and  not  otherwise,  in  the 
mind  of  Mark.  We  have  seen  who  Mark  was.  \Ve  have 
now  to  ask  how  he  had goi  '  the  Gospel'  as  he  here  writes 
it  dou-n. 

To  answer  this  question,  we  must  go  behind  all  our 
written  Gospels  to  the  Christian  Mission  out  of  which  they 
were  born,  to  '  the  Gospel '  as  preached,  which  was  the 
seed  of  the  Church.  In  its  most  original  sense  '  the 
Gospel,'  both  as  idea  and  as  term,  was  adopted  from 
Isaiah,  '  the  Evangelical  ("  Gospel ")  prophet,'  particu- 
larly from  two  great  passages,  lii.  7  f.,  Ixi.  i  ft",  :  '  How 
beautiful . . .  are  the  feet  of  him  that  bringeth  good  tidings 
(in  Gk.  "evangelizeth,"  the  word  in  the  N.  T.  for  "preach 
the  Gospel"),  that  proclaimeth  ("preaches"  in  N.T. 
phraseology)  peace,  that  bringeth  good  tidings  of  good, 
that  proclaimeth  salvation  :  that  saith  unto  Zion,  Thy  God 
reigneth  ! '  (the  idea  of  '  the  kingdom  of  God  ').  So  the 
coming  redemption  of  God's  People,  by  His  more  imme- 
diate presence  among  them,  is  described.  And  this  is  how 
God's  primary  messenger  speaks  of  his' Gospel'  ministry. 
'  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me  :  because  the 
Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tiditigs  ("  Gospel  ") 
unto  the  meek  :  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  broken- 
hearted (i.e.  the  contrite  or  truly  penitent),  to  proclaim 
liberty  to  the  captives  and  the  opening  (of  prison)  to  them 
that  are  bound  ;  to  proclaim  the  year  of  the  Lord's  good 
pleasure,  and  our  God's  day  of  vindication  ;  to  comfort 
all  that  mourn  in  Zion.'  In  this  passage  (quoted  in  Jesus' 
sermon  at  Nazareth,  which  Luke  prefixes  to  his  story  o£ 


INTRODUCTION  13 

Christ's  Gospel  ministry,  as  its  fitting  programme,  cf. 
Matt.  xi.  5,  Luke  vii.  22),  and  in  the  foregoing  one,  we 
have  all  the  essential  ideas  of  Jesus'  Gospel-ministry  ac- 
cording to  Mark's  representation.  Witness  in  particular 
the  opening  or  introductory  section :  '  Prelude  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  Even  as  it  stands  written  in  Isaiah 
the  prophet, 

The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord  (God), 
Make  straight  his  paths, 

there  appeared  John  the  Baptizer  in  the  wilderness,  pro- 
claiming a  baptism  of  repentance  unto  forgiveness  of 
sins.' 

Such,  in  the  light  of  this  explicit  citation  of  the  Evan- 
gelic Prophet  (Is.  xl.  3,  following  on  '  Comfort  ye,  comfort 
ye,  my  people,  saith  the  Lord,'  with  a  message  of  for- 
giveness for  Jerusalem's  sin),  seems  to  be  the  sense  in 
which  Mark  conceives  '  the  Gospel  of  (proclaimed  by) 
Jesus  Christ,'  as  set  forth  in  his  narrative  of  the  Anointed 
One's  Gospel-ministry  which  follows.  Here  there  is  no 
direct  reference  to  any  written  form  of  the  Gospel,  such 
as  came  to  be  called  '  a  Gospel,'  nor  even  to  the  Gospel 
as  preached  by  others  '  in  the  name  of  Christ ' — a  sense  in 
which  it  occurs  in  viii.  35,  x.  29,  xiv.  9,  cf.  xiii.  10.  Much 
less  is  it  '  the  Gospel '  in  the  sense  characteristic  of  the 
Epistle,  viz. '  good  news '  about  Jesus  Christ,  as  himself  the 
substance  of  the  Message  he  proclaimed  and  embodied. 
But  the  thought  that  Jesus  had  embodied  in  his  deeds  and 
whole  life  the  very  principles  of  the  message  he  brought  in 
his  Father's  name,  was  in  fact  integral  to  Mark's  concep- 
tion of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  it  was  his  pur- 
pose, declared  in  his  opening  words,  to  present  in  written 
form  to  his  readers.  This  idea  of  '  the  strong  Son  of  God  ' 
— strong  in  liis  Passion  as  in  his  deeds  of  divine  power 
and  pity — is  characteristic  of  Mark's  whole  Gospel-story. 
It  is  his  animating  faith  and  the  principle  of  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  historical  materials  which  he  moulds  into  a 


14  ST.  MARK 

unified  and  coherent  religious  record.  For  him  the  Gospel 
was  embodied  in  the  person  of  Jesus  the  Christ  and  re- 
vealed in  his  ministry  ;  in  his  deeds  even  more  impres- 
sively than  in  his  teaching  ;  or  at  least  in  his  words  mainly 
as  related  to  his  attitude  to  men,  as  the  living  exhibition  of 
God's  own  attitude,  and  therefore  in  their  historic  setting 
of  personal  intercourse  with  men  and  women  in  varied 
forms  of  need. 

Thus  Mark's  written  Gospel,  like  its  fellows,  was  based 
on  the  oral  Gospel,  whether  preached  by  the  Christian 
missionary  as  '  good  news  '  to  his  hearers  for  the  first  time 
or  expounded  more  fully  and  connectedly  to  those  already 
believers,  in  order  to  enable  them  to  form  a  more  adequate 
image  to  themselves  of  its  meaning.  It  was  written  too 
in  the  spirit  and  manner  of  a  preacher  rather  than  an 
historian,  much  less  a  biographer,  although  in  fact  it  con- 
tains priceless  data  both  for  the  one  and  the  other.  Its  object 
was  to  bring  home  the  saving  Gospel  of  GocCs  gracious 
will  and  ways  \v\\h  increased  force,  fulness,  and  vividness, 
to  the  souls  and  minds  of  its  readers,  assumed  to  know 
already  something  of  the  matter,  and  to  be  receptive  to- 
wards what  they  might  further  be  told,  without  need  of 
any  formal  proof  or  evidence  for  the  story  in  whole  or  in 
part.  Yet  the  selection  of  incidents  in  it,  as  in  the  tradi- 
tion behind  it,  has  (comp.  Prof.  B.  W.  Bacon,  Is  Mark  a 
Roman  Gospel  f  pp.  66-73,  80-84)  a  certain  apologetic  or 
defensive  interest,  over  against  Jewish  non-belief  and  J  udaic 
usages,  though  less  markedly  than  in  the  presentation  of 
the  Gospel  by  our  First  Evangelist,  with  his  concern  to 
set  forth  the  practical  Law  of  the  Kingdom,  as  distinct 
from  the  current  Law  of  Moses.  Mark  is,  indeed,  more 
akin  to  the  Third  Gospel  in  the  kind  of  Gospel  which  it 
aims  at  impressing  on  its  readers'  hearts  and  minds.  But 
it  does  not  make  the  same  effort  as  does  Luke,  the  cul- 
tured Greek  evangelist — his  Preface  being  witness — to 
set  forth  the  story  of  Jesus,  the  Supreme  Evangelist  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  in  a  complete  and  carefully  ordered. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

and  to  that  extent  historically  satisfactory  fashion,  for  the 
fuller  assurance  of  readers  who  felt  the  value  and  need  of 
such  a  type  of  narrative. 

The  special  standpoint  and  aim  of  Mark's  Gospel  ex- 
plains also  the  minor  place  taken  by  Jesus'  teaching  or 
sayings,  save  as  part  of  his  actions,  and  as  springing  im- 
mediately out  of  them.  Here  the  absence  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  is  not  accidental.  Mark  is  not  concerned  with 
Jesus'  teaching  in  detail  (assumed  to  be  known  to  the 
readers  through  the  Church's  practical  instruction  in  caie- 
chesis),  but  with  Jesus  as  preaching  '  the  Kingdom  of  God,' 
both  by  word  and  deed,  and  the  way  in  which  he  stirred 
men  and  women  to  faith,  on  the  one  hand,  and  unbelief  on 
the  other — an  object-lesson  of  pregnant  application  to 
their  own  day  for  those  who  first  read  the  story.  Faith 
and  non-faith  towards  Jesus  the  Christ  was  the  standing 
experience  and  problem  of  Christians  then,  as  when  Jesus 
preached  and  worked  in  Palestine.  For  they  too  had  to 
be  'witnesses'  to  the  Gospel,  as  had  their  Lord  himself, 
and  that  unto  suffering  and  death  (i  Pet.  v.  I,  'a  witness 
to  the  sufferings  of  Christ,'  in  the  sense  of  ii.  19-21,  iv. 
13 f.,  15),  if  need  be,  like  'the  faithful  and  true  Witness,' 
'  who  became  dead  and  lived,'  and  called  his  followers  ^ 
to  'be  faithful  unto  death,'  and  so  like  him  receive  'the 
crown  of  life  '  (Rev.  iii.  14,  ii.  8,  10)  through  'the  patient 
endurance  and  the  faith  of  the  saints'  (xiii.  10,  cf.j.  9, 
ii.  2  f.,  ig,  iii.  10,  xiv.  12). 

We  have  constantly  to  bear  in  mind  the  actual  envi- 
ronment and  religious  experience  amid  which  the  first 
readers  of  the  Gospels,  as  of  all  New  Testament  writings 
— with  their  intensely  practical  aim  and  spirit — lived  and 
had  their  being,  if  we  are  to  see  those  writings  in  their 

'  Hort  in  his  notes  on  i  Pet.  i.  1 1,  where  he  cites  Heb.  iii.  14, 
*  partakers  with  the  Christ.'  brings  out  the  thought  that 
'Christians'  by  their  very  idea  and  vocation  share  in  the 
Messiahship  and  Messianic  lot  of  Jesus,  as  being  also  God's 
anointed  ones. 


i6  ST.   MARK 

true  perspective,  that  determined  by  their  original  setting 
in  life.  This  consideration  gives  an  added  significance  to 
the  contents  of  Mark's  Gospel,  so  far  as  they  are  selected 
materials.  The  emphasis  thus  visible  makes  it,  as  J.  Weiss 
has  well  said,  indirectly  a  supplement  to  the  book  of  Acts, 
as  witnessing  to  Christian  conditions  in  the  later  Apostolic 
Age.  This  applies  notably  to  the  story  of  the  Passion,  as 
well  as  to  the  fulness  with  which  the  martyrdom  ('witness' 
unto  death)  of  John  the  Baptist  is  given  by  Mark  ;  but 
also  to  the  Parables  selected  for  inclusion  in  this  Gospel, 
which  have  relation  to  the  Christian  Mission,  especially 
its  growth  as  seed  and  that  amid  difficulties. 

5.    Sources  of  Mark's  Gospel. 

The  personal  form  given  to  '  the  Gospel '  in  Mark  among 
the  four  Gospels— explaining  as  it  does  the  vivid,  realistic 
impression  of  Jesus  himself  left  upon  the  reader's  mind- 
raises  a  question  of  great  interest  and  moment  as  regards 
the  most  primitive  fori/i  of  the  Apostolic  tradition  lying 
behind  all  written  Gospels.  '  The  teaching  of  Jesus,'  says 
Menzies  (p.  104),  '  was  preserved  in  the  earliest  period  in 
two  forms:  firstly  in  stories  leading  up  to  some  saying  of 
Christ,  and  secondly  in  discourses  which  were  remembered 
for  their  own  sake,  and  could  be  transmitted  without 
stories  to  carry  them.  The  first  form  tended  to  pass  into 
the  second.'  But  it  is  doubtful  how  far  the  second  form 
of  teaching,  as  just  described,  existed  at  all  in  the  very 
earliest  period.  All  analogy  derived  from  traditions  touch- 
ing prophetic  religious  personalities,  such  for  instance  as 
Francis  of  Assisi — one  of  those  closest  to  his  Master  in  the 
conditions  of  his  activity,  as  in  certain  primary  elements 
in  his  spirit  and  message — points  to  the  first  form  of  the 
Christian  tradition  having  been  that  of  personal  incidents 
and  conversations.  Abstract  teaching  of  principles  by 
means  of  connected  sayings,  grouped  mainly  l:iy  affinity 
of  topic,  with  a  minimum  of  historical  setting,  and  there- 


INTRODUCTION  17 

fore  of  personal  appeal  to  the  imagination  and  emotions, 
came  only  later.  When,  moreover,  we  consider  the  kind 
of  men  Jesus'  personal  disciples  were,  by  whose  minds 
as  primary  witnesses  and  '  ministers  of  the  message' — to 
use  Luke's  phrase — the  Gospel  tradition  was  shaped,  this 
conclusion  seems  well-nigh  inevitable.  Particularly  is  this 
the  case,  if  we  fix  our  thouglits  upon  Peter,  who  must  have 
contributed  most  to  determine  the  genius  and  character, 
not  only  of  the  primitive  preaching  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ 
and  the  medium  of  Messianic  Salvation,  but  also  of  the 
tradition  passed  on  to  converts  by  oral  instruction  com- 
mitted to  memory  {caiechesis),  in  order  to  furnish  fuller 
knowledge  touching  the  Christ  and  the  '  good  news ' 
brought  by  him.  The  impression  gained  from  the  con- 
densed summary,  as  it  doubtless  is,  of  Peter's  address  to 
Cornelius  and  his  friends  at  Csesarea  (Acts  x.  34-43),  en- 
tirely confirms  such  a  view. 

All  leads,  then,  to  the  belief  that  Mark's  type  of  Gospel 
tradition  was  in  nature  akin  to  the  common  Apostolic 
tradition,  going  back  in  basis  to  early  Jerusalem  days 
when  the  Apostles  were  together  under  the  lead  of  Peter 
(cf.  Acts  ii.  42),  before  it  separated  into  more  varied 
streams  of  witness  according  as  this  or  that  '  apostle  '  or 
'  missionary  preacher '  taught  his  own  variety  of  local 
tradition,  away  from  the  original  centre.  Certainly  it  is 
closer  in  form  to  the  distinctive  part  of  Luke's  Gospel, 
seen  most  clearly  in  the  big  special  section  ix.  51-xviii.  14, 
where  are  many  of  the  sayings  common  in  substance  to  it 
and  Matthew,  than  to  the  latter,  with  its  elaborately  massed 
discourses.  These  latter  probably  represent  a  secondary 
and  supplemental  form  of  the  Christian  tradition,  when, 
owing  to  the  growing  demand  for  instruction  about  certain 
practical  points  bearing  on  Christian  conduct  in  the 
apostolic  churches,  the  topical  grouping  of  sayings,  ab- 
stracted from  their  historical  occasion  and  context,  had 
been  going  on  for  many  years.  Accordingly  it  is  to  be 
doubted  whether  any  Apostle  was  responsible  for  such 

C 


i8  ST.   MARK 

unhistorical  and  artificial  grouping  of  the  sayings  of  his 
Master  as  is  involved  in  their  arrangement  by  seeming 
topical  or  logical  affinities,  the  full  outcome  of  which  is 
seen  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  our  Matthew,  and  in 
varying  degrees  in  its  Commission  of  the  Twelve,  its  group 
of  Seven  Parables  in  ch.  xiii,  its  Seven  Woes  on  the 
Pharisees  in  ch.  xxiii,  and  the  three  Eschatological  Para- 
bles of  ch.  XXV.  That  the  Apostle  Matthew  himself  actu- 
ally wrote,  as  Papias  is  generally  ^  understood  to  assert, 
any  such  abstract  'collection  of  the  Lord's  Oracles',  and 
that  it  was  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name — 
and  even,  as  many  scholars  have  held,  of  the  body  of  say- 
ings common  to  it  and  Luke's  Gospel  — seems  really  most 
improbable.^  And  this  improbability  is  increased  when 
we  observe  that  a  certain  proportion  of  the  didactic  matter 
massed  together  in  the  First  Gospel  is  more  or  less 
coloured,  to  say  the  least,  by  the  special  conditions  of  the 
apostolic  age.  Sayings  of  this  kind  would  be  attracted, 
gradually  and  unconsciously,  to  their  present  position  by 
affinity  of  subject,  and  the  more  easily  that  some  of  Jesus' 
own  authentic  sayings  had  in  course  of  time  lost  their 
proper  historic  settmgs  in  concrete  incidents  and  conversa- 
tions, such  as  are  the  staple  of  Mark's  narrative. 

These  considerations  have  a  bearing  on  the  question  of 

^  Probably,  however,  a  body  of  O.  T.  proof-texts  is  meant. 

2  Not  only  is  it  almost  inconceivable  that  a  Gospel  writing  of 
direct  apostolic  authorship  should  have  been  suffered  to  fall  into 
disuse,  even  after  being  used  in  other  writings  which  could  not 
claim  such  high  authority  ;  but  also  the  wording  of  the  Preface 
to  Luke's  Gospel — with  its  reference  to  current  attempts  by 
predecessors  to  draw  up  a  Gospel  '  narrative '  on  the  basis  of 
apostolic  witness — seems  almost  to  exclude  Luke's  knowledge 
of  any  Gospel  writing  clothed  with  the  full  authority  of  one  of 
'  the  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  '.  Such  an 
apostolic  writing,  even  though  not  of  the  narrative  type  which 
Luke  has  in  view,  could  hardly  have  been  ignored  in  this  con- 
nexion, especially  if  it  included  the  amount  of  narrative  setting 
which  it  is  rightly'  argued  that  the  second  common  source  of 
Luke  and  Matthew  must  have  contained,  if  it  is  to  account  for 
their  special  parallelisms  in  such  matters. 


INTRODUCTION  19 

the  hypothetical  written  Source  {Quelle,  in  German, 
whence  the  symbol  O),  often  credited  to  the  Apostle 
Matthew,  which  upholders  of  the  '  Two  document '  theory 
of  the  mutual  relations  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels  think  it 
needful  to  assume,  in  order  to  account  for  the  common 
element  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  in  addition  to  what  each 
owes  to  Mark.  Most  aspects  of  this  problem  belong  more 
properly  to  Introductions  to  those  Gospels  than  to  the 
present  one. 

See  Archdeacon  Allen's  commentary  on  Mark  (below,  §  17), 
pp.  7-9,  for  the  very  various  views  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
dubious  document  Q  to  the  several  Synoptic  Gospels.  Refer- 
ence may  be  made  to  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problent, 
in  particular  to  Canon  Streeter's  essay  on  'The  Literary 
Evolution  of  the  Gospels ',  for  details.  But  no  theory  of  a  written 
Q  meets  all  the  facts  enough  to  convince  the  present  writer 
that  a  body  of  traditional  sayings  of  Jesus  in  a  connected  form, 
with  some  indeterminate  historical  element  of  introductory 
setting,  ever  existed  in  a  single  written  form,  rather  than  as  a 
common  body  of  oral  apostolic  tradition,  with  local  variations 
of  compass  and  detail.  A  seemingly  crucial  proof  that  Q  was 
not  a  document,  but  a  variable  oral  tradition,  is  the  difference 
in  the  section  on  the  Centurion's  servant  in  the  parallel  forms 
in  Matt.  viii.  sff.,  Luke  vii.  i  ff.,  to  which  may  be  added  John 
iv.  46  ff.  See  further  '  The  Sources  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel '  in 
the  above  volume,  esp.  pp.  315  f.,  3263".,  361  f  There  the 
common  apostolic  tradition  is  styled  Q,  and  the  form  in  which 
it  was  known  to  Luke,  QL — as  distinct  from  QM,  used  by  our 
First  Gospel,  and  QM'',  used  \>y  our  Mark.  In  the  present 
commentary  X  is  used  instead  of  Q,  in  order  to  avoid  con- 
fusion of  terms,  as  the  scope  of  the  tradition  represented  by 
Q  in  common  usage  differs  from  that  assigned  to  it  in  the  above 
essay,  the  latter  viewing  it  as  largely  akin  to  our  Mark  without 
its  special  Petrine  element,  or  to  the  great  special  section  of 
Luke  (ix.  51 — xviii.  14).  As  Professor  B.  W.  Bacon  observes  : 
'  Whatever  of  Q  has  passed  into  either  Mattliew  or  Luke 
through  the  medium  of  Mark  will  fail  to  appear.  And  it  is 
precisely  the  narrative  element  or  elements  .  .  .  which  would 


20  ST.  MARK 

suffer  this  fate.  It  becomes,  therefore,  largely  a  petiiio  principii 
to  argue  from  the  paucity  of  narrative  of  Q  thus  recotistruded 
(i.e.  after  the  elimination  of  the  Mark  element  in  Matthew  and 
Luke)  that  it  was  not,  like  our  Gospels,  a  story  of  the  "  sayings 
and  doings,"  but  merely  a  manual  of  the  "teachings"  of 
Jesus  '  {American  Journal  of  Theology,  xii.  653"). 

All  that  here  falls  to  be  said  is,  that  there  is  really  no 
need  of  any  such  document  to  explain  the  phenomena  of 
Mark  in  relation  to  the  other  Synoptics.  The  didactic 
element  common  to  it  and  them,  whether  singly  or 
together  (so  far  as  it  is  not  integral  to  Marcan  incidents), 
is  quite  inconsiderable ;  and  the  Marcan  sayings  ^  in 
general  are  largely  distinctive  in  form  or  conception.  This 
element,  in  its  several  forms,  points  back  simply  to  the 
common  apostolic  tradition.  In  it,  as  it  spread  abroad, 
local  variations  gradually  arose,  not  only  in  the  wording 
of  certain  sayings,  but  also  as  regards  the  amount  of 
didactic  matter,  current  without  proper  historic  setting, 
which  became  attached  in  difterent  Christian  circles  to 
the  same  historic  nucleus  of  teaching  arising  out  of  a 
concrete  incident.  We  have  constant  traces  of  this  com- 
mon apostolic  tradition  in  all  our  Synoptics,  where  two 
or  more  are  parallel  to  each  other,  but  with  certain 
features  peculiar  to  one  or  another  (see  the  edition  of  Luke, 
Introduction,  iv,  pp.  31-5,  and  p.  28  note).  We  may  for 
convenience  style  it  X  (as  of  unknown,  because  variable, 
compass),  as  distinct  from  the  Q  of  current  usage.  From 
this  latter  our  X  differentiates  itself  {a)  as  not  being 
written,  but  only  oral,  prior  to  its  embodiment  (as  current 
in  various  localities)  in  our  various  Synoptics ;  and  {b)  as 
not  being  primarily  a  collection  of  Sayings  (with  some 
slight  historical  introductory  matter  in  certain  cases). 

According  to  this  conception  of  the  matter,  our  Mark 

1  Compare  a  paper  by  Dr.  T.  Stephenson  in  the  Jount.  of 
Thcol.  Studies,  on  '  Our  Lord's  teaching  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel,' 
where  it  is  shewn  that  '  the  discourse-material  of  Mark  consti- 
tutes more  than  a  third  of  the  Gospel,'  and  stands  in  organic  con- 
nexion with  the  narrative  as  the  embodied  Gospel  of  the  Cross. 


INTRODUCTION  21 

is  based  fundamentally  on  the  co7>wion  apostolic  type  of 
tradition  (X)  in  the  form  best  known  to  Mark  himself,'  in 
the  main  that  used  by  Peter,  with  whom  he  had  worked 
probably  more  than  once  before  the  latter's  martyrdom, 
A.  D.  64.  To  this  Mark  may  have  added  some  matter  from 
his  own  knowledge  of  Jesus'  last  week  in  Jerusalem, 
which,  along  with  Peter's  personal  recollections  through- 
out, expanded  and  enriched  the  common  apostolic  basis, 
known  in  other  local  forms  (perhaps  modified  respectively 
by  Matthew  and  another  Apostle,  say  John,  as  the 
Marcan  form  was  by  Peter)  to  the  two  other  Synoptists,- 

^  Archdeacon  W.  C.  Allen,  in  his  Commentar}'  noted  above, 
argues  that  it  was  known  to  Mark  in  a  written  Aramaic  form. 
The  evidence  for  this  seems  insufficient,  although  there  are 
traces  of  an  oral  Aramaic  stage  of  tradition  l^'ing  behind  the 
Greek-  form  found  in  our  Mark,  and  used  by  its  author  in 
instructing  Gentiles  before  it  was  embodied  in  his  Gospel. 

"^  And,  one  may  add,  perhaps  also  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  who  seems  to  have  knowledge  of  the 
apostolic  tradition  apart  even  from  our  Gospels.  The  above 
account  is  consonant  with  the  observations  upon  the  nature 
and  scope  of  Q.  and  on  the  relation  of  Mark  and  Q,  in  Canon 
Streeter's  statement  of  '  The  Synoptic  Problem  '  in  Peake^s 
Commentary  on  the  Bible  (pp.  677  f.),  save  that  there  Q  is  con- 
ceived as  a  document  prior  to  Mark.  But  when  he  concludes  by 
asking  (i  1  '  Did  Matt,  and  Luke  .  .  .  use  Q  ...  in  two  differently 
expanded  forms,  which  included  the  greater  part  of  the  material 
peculiar  to  their  respective  Gospels  ? '  and  (2)  '  Where  Mk. 
and  Q  overlap,  does  each  represent  an  independent  tradition  of 
the  actual  words  spoken  ?'  i  and  one  might  ask  the  same  touch- 
ing their  historical  setting  too),  he  seems  to  reach  a  position 
hardly  distinguishable  in  effect  from  the  alternative  expounded 
above.  [Since  this  was  written,  he  has  gone  yet  further  in  the 
same  direction  as  regards  Luke's  second  source  at  least ;  see 
Hibbert  fournal,  Oct.  1921.]  The  latter  can  also  claim  best  to 
satisfy  the  case  as  seen  by  Wellhausen,  according  to  Dr.  Peake's 
editorial  note  on  p.  678.  For  he  'has  argued  that  Mk.  was 
earlier  than  Q'  (i.  e.  Mk.  embodies  an  earlier  type  of  apostolic 
tradition),  and  'that  not  merely  Mt.  and  Lk.  but  Q  also  were 
indebted  to  Mk.'  Peake  justly  sets  the  la'.ter  suggestion  aside, 
in  the  form  in  which  it  is  stated  :  but  the  grounds  on  which  it 
rests  may  be  claimed  in  favour  of  Mark's  form  of  X  being  older 
than  that  of  Mt.  or  Lk. 


2  2  ST.  MARK 

of  whom  Luke  possessed  the  more  historically  valuable 
version.  But  beyond  this  Petrine  form  of  the  common 
Christian  tradition  (X^*^-),  Mark  seems  to  have  used  a 
secondary  one,  derived  not  from  Peter  at  all,  but  from  at 
least  one  other  stratum  of  iraditioti  (X-),  possibly  that 
current  in  the  locality  where  he  wrote  his  Gospel.  This 
secondary  or  non-Petrine  element  is  seen  chiefly  in 
viii.  1-26,  including  the  Second  Feeding  of  a  Multitude. 
Further,  we  have  to  account,  in  one  way  or  another,  for 
certain  sayings  only  loosely  attached  to,  not  growing 
organically  out  of,  the  historic  setting  in  which  they  are 
found  in  Mark.  When  these  distinctions  are  recognized 
in  the  materials  at  Mark's  disposal,  there  no  longer  seems 
any  need  to  assume  a  second  and  later  hand  as  having 
contributed  to  any  appreciable  extent  (apart  from  isolated 
explanatory  verses  or  glosses)  to  his  Gospel  as  we  have 
it,  still  less  to  the  form  in  which  it  lay  before  the  authors 
of  the  two  other  Synoptics.  Hypotheses  of  one  or  more 
later  'redactors,'  which  are  highly  subjective  and  pre- 
carious in  their  reasoning,  raise  more  literary  and  psycho- 
logical difficulties  than  they  purport  to  solve,  and  are 
superfluous  once  due  allowance  is  made  for  the  probabihty 
of  some  such  variety  in  Mark's  sources  as  is  outlined 
above.^ 


^  The  present  writer  doubts  the  need  of  assuming,  with 
Eduard  Meyer  (in  his  Uisprung  und  Anfdiige  des  Cliristeniunis, 
Bd.  i,  192 1,  ch.  v),  at  least  two  Aramaic  written  sources, 
dealing  respectively  with  '  the  Twelve  '  and  'the  Disciples'  (in 
two  parallel  forms  for  the  journcyings  in  Mk.  vi.  30 — viii.  26X 
On  the  other  hand  he  is  happy  to  find  that  both  in  general 
estimate  of  the  large  degree  to  which  variations  between  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  are  due  to  *  oral  tradition'  moulding  the 
Evangelical  material  before  it  took  written  form,  and  in  the 
bearing  of  this  familiar  law  of  religious  tradition  upon  the  sub- 
stantial historicity  of  that  material  — both  as  to  deeds  and  words 
— his  own  results,  though  independently  reached  and  differing  a 
good  deal  in  form  of  statement  (e.g.  as  regards  the  Q  element'), 
coincide  very  largely  with  those  of  Dr.  James  Denney  in  his 
Jesus  and  the  Gospel,  especiallv  pp.  179  f.,  193-198  and  note. 


INTRODUCTION  43 

6.  Compass  and  Contents, 
This  Gospel  keeps  within  the  limits  of  apostolic  preach- 
ing as  given  by  Peter  in  his  discourse  before  Cornelius 
(Acts  X.  37-41).  It  begins  with  the  Baptist's  mission  and 
ends  with  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  has  a  brief  pre- 
liminary section,  dealing  with  John's  ministry  and  with  the 
preparation  of  Jesus  for  his  official  work  by  his  Baptism 
and  his  Temptation  (ch.  i.  1-13) ;  a  central  section  of  nar- 
rative, forming  the  body  of  our  Gospel  (chs.  i.  14— xv.  47) ; 
and  a  sequel  dealing  with  the  Resurrection  (ch.  xvi) — 
originally  also  the  commission  of  the  risen  Christ  to 
those  who  were  to  continue  His  Gospel  (cf.  Lk.  xxiv.  fiit.y 
Acts  i.  1-3).  For  we  must  remember  that  our  Mark  is 
not  complete.  The  central  section  itself  falls  into  two  great 
blocks,  one  given  to  the  Galilean  ministry  (chs.  i.  14— ix. 
50),  the  other  to  the  last  week  in  Jerusalem  (chs.  xi.  I — xv). 
The  story  of  the  intermediate  events,  covering  the  journey 
through  Persea  and  Judaea,  is  more  briefly  told  (ch.  x). 

But  the  Galilean  period  itself  falls  into  certain  more  or 
less  clearly  defined  sections.  There  is,  first,  the  ministry 
in  the  parts  to  the  west  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  or  about  its 
shores  on  several  sides  (chs.  i.  14— vii.  23)  ;  then  a  brief 
retirement  beyond  Galilee  altogether,  to  the  NNW., 
with  a  return  to  its  north-easterly  parts  and  to  its  lake 
(chs.  vii.  24 — ix.  50).  The  story  of  these  two  stages  in 
and  about  Galilee  itself  falls,  again,  into  several  phases. 
Of  these,  the  first  is  occupied  with  the  announcement  of 
the  Kingdom,  the  call  of  the  first  Disciples,  and  the 
beginnings  of  opposition  (chs.  i.  14-  iii.  16);  the  second, 
with  the  call  of  the  Twelve,  and  the  events  following  that 
decisive  act,  on  to  the  rejection  at  Nazareth  (chs.  iii.  7  — 
vi.  6) ;  and  the  third,  with  the  mission  of  the  Twelve, 
and  the  subsequent  events,  on  to  the  retirement  to  the 
borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  (chs.  vi.  6— vii.  23).  That 
episode  is  told  very  briefly  (vii.  24-31),  and  shades  off 
into  a  renewed  ministry  of  a  less  ordered  kind,  told  in  two 
sections — one  embracing  all  that  happened  up  to  Christ's 


24  ST.  MARK 

withdrawal  in  the  direction  of  Csesarea  Philippi  (chs. 
vii.  24 — viii.  26),  and  the  other  all  that  occurred  from 
Peter's  confession  on  to  the  words  on  self-denial  (chs. 
viii.  27 — ix.  50).  A  section  transitional  between  Galilee 
and  Jerusalem  follows  (ch.  x)  ;  and  then  the  events  of 
Passion  Week  (chs.  xi — xv)  are  related  with  particular 
fulness  and  continuity,  almost  in  the  style  of  a  diary,  day 
by  day,  if  not  hour  by  hour. 

7.    Plan  and  Method. 

We  can  discover,  therefore,  in  Mark's  Gospel  a  certain 
plan,  but  a  simple  one.  It  does  not  attempt  much  literary 
form,  neither  does  it  give  events  by  any  means  in  their 
strict  chronological  succession.  Nor,  again,  does  it  follow 
to  any  large  extent  the  method  of  grouping  which  we  see 
so  clearly  in  Matthew.  There  are  some  instances  of  this 
(possibly  due  to  the  tradition),  especially  in  the  second 
and  third  chapters,  but  not  many.  There  is,  however, 
a  certain  order  implicit  in  the  facts  as  recorded.  As 
presented,  they  shew  us  how  in  his  teaching  Jesus 
followed  a  certain  method ;  how  he  began  with  the  call 
to  repentance,  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  and  the 
defence  of  certain  features  of  his  practice  against  current 
objections,  all  in  a  simple  way  and  as  occasion  offered  ; 
and  proceeded  in  due  time — specially  in  dealing  with  his 
Disciples — to  the  deeper  things  of  the  new  spiritual  order, 
the  mysteries  of  his  own  Person,  his  Rejection,  Death, 
and  Resurrection.  There  are  two  great  turning-points 
in  Jesus'  method  of  teaching,  implying  corresponding 
changes  in  Jesus'  own  outlook  on  the  immediate  prospects 
of  his  Gospel-ministry,  which  are  implicit  in  the  whole 
story  :  the  resort  to  parabolic  teaching  in  public  (ch.  iv.  2, 
33  f.),  and  the  change  of  theme  after  Cassarea  Philippi  (ch. 
viii.  27  ff.).  He  delivered  his  message  at  first  generally 
in  direct  terms,  and  afterwards  in  the  form  of  '  parables ' ; 
he  took  too  for  the  scene  of  his  first  preaching  the  towns 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  using  the  synagogues 


INTRODUCTION  25 

to  begin  with,  and  then  went  furtiier  afield,  addressing 
his  word  to  hirger  audiences  out  of  doors.  What  our  Mark 
gives  is  not  a  complete  biography,  far  less  mere  history, 
but  outlines  of  Jesus'  Gospel  Mission  in  word  and  deed. 
It  passes  by,  therefore,  the  preliminary  history,  up  to  the 
period  of  immediate  preparation  for  that  ministry.  It 
has  no  long  discourses,  with  the  exception  of  a  specimen 
group  of  parables  and  the  great  declaration  on  the 
End.  It  leaves  even  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  without 
report.  The  substance  of  Jesus'  moral  teachinj:^  is  taken 
as  already  known  (orally  or  otherwise)  to  the  readers ; 
and  this  gives  special  significance  to  the  exceptions  just 
named,  as  having  a  special  bearing  on  the  interests, 
problems,  conditions  of  those  readers  when  Mark  wrote. 
Both  he  and  others  were  deeply  interested  in  the  way  in 
which  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  Gospel  '  seed '  spread  in 
the  face  of  opposition,  and  met  with  different  receptions — 
faith  and  unbelief— in  different  quarters  ;  and  particularly 
how  its  growth,  gradual  and  obscure  as  were  its  processes, 
was  assured  by  God's  providential  working,  seen  first  in 
Messiah's  own  career  as  its  Prime  Evangelist.  It  gives 
few  parables — only  four,  together  with  three  minor  or 
germ  parables.  It  deals  with  the  acts  of  Jesus  rather 
than  his  words.  It  has  many  more  miracles  than  parables 
— about  eighteen.  These  are  chiefly  miracles  of  healing, 
and  mostly  belong  to  the  period  before  the  Transfigura- 
tion— which  was  also  much  the  longer  in  time.  Some 
further  remarks  bearing  on  the  Contents  and  Plan  of 
Mark's  Gospel  will  be  found  below  (§  14). 

8.    Relation  of  Mark  to  Matthew  and  Luke." 

The  three  Synoptical  Gospels  have  much  in  common  as 
regards  both  the  things  recorded  and  the  order  in  which 
they  are  given.  But  each  has  also  its  own  peculiarities. 
Mucli  that  is  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  or  in  one  or  other 
of  them,  is  absent  from  Mark  :  of  the  former,  e.g.  chaps. 
i,  ii,  v-vii,  and  of  the  latter,  chs.  i,  ii,  ix.  51— xviii.  14. 


26  ST.  MARK 

On  the  other  hand,  Mark  has  passages  which  the  others 
have  not.     He  has  one  parable  pecuHar  to  himself,  that 
touching  Growth  as  in  God's  hands  (ch.  iv.  26-29),  and 
two   miracles,   those   of  the   deaf  mute    (ch.  vii.  31-37) 
and  the  blind   man  of  Bethsaida  (ch.  viii.  22-26).     He 
gives  also  certain  things  vv^hich  are  not  reported  by  the 
others— the  dullness  of  the  disciples  and  their  disputings 
(ch.  viii.  17,  18,  ix.  33),  the  incident  of  the  young  man 
(ch.  xiv.  51,  52),  the  smiting  of  Jesus  by  the  servants  (ch. 
xiv.  65),  Pilate's  wonder,  &c.  (ch.  xv.  44)-   Further,  Mark 
has    a   certain   proportion   of  matter  which   appears   in 
Matthew  but  not  in  Luke,  or  in  Luke  but  not  in  Matthew  ; 
and  in  narratives  which  are  common  to  the  three,  or  to 
Mark  and  one  of  the  others,  he  adds  in  not  a  few  cases 
considerably  to  our  knowledge  by  his  richer  detail.     This 
will  appear  if  one  compares  his  accounts  of  the  paralytic, 
the  demoniac  boy,  i\\&  purgation  of  the  Te?nple,  &c.,  with 
those  of  the  others.     In  the  matter  of  arrangement,  too, 
he  has  a  way  of  his  own.     In  the  case  of  the  Galilean 
ministry,   e.g.,  he    differs   considerably   from  Matthew's 
order  up  to  the  story  cf  Herod  (ch.  vi.  13),  after  which 
there  is  more  agreement.     In  the  later  chapters  (x-xvi) 
Mark's   order   is   very   much   that   of  the    others.     The 
amount  of  divergence  from  Luke  is  as  a  rule  less  than 
from   Matthew;    but  some  things  are  not  given  in  the 
same  connexion  by  Mark  as  by  Luke. 

But  while  there  are  considerable  differences  between 
Mark  and  the  other  Synoptical  Gospels,  there  is  also 
large  agreement.  Nor  is  this  confined  to  the  general 
selection  and  arrangement  of  matter  :  it  extends  even  to 
words  and  phrases.  In  order  to  understand  the  nature 
and  measure  of  these  coincidences,  one  should  carefully 
compare  such  passages  in  Mark  as  ch.  iv.  3-9,  vm.  27 
ix.  9  with  their  equivalents  in  Matt.  xiii.  3-9,  xvi.  13-28, 
xvii.  l-io;  or  such  passages  as  Mark  i.  40-44  with  Luke 
v.  12-16  ;  Mark  ii.  12-22  with  Luke  v.  27-39.  The  ques- 
tion therefore  arises,  How  are  these  facts  to  be  explained  ? 


INTRODUCTION  27 

Is  Mark  dependent  on  Matthew  and  Luke,  or  is  the  oppo- 
site the  case?  Here  ancient  tradition  has  no  special 
authority,  being,  like  our  own  conclusions  to-day,  based 
simply  on  inference :  and  modern  scholars  are  almost 
unanimous  in  regarding  Mark  as  used  by  tlie  other  two. 
They  never  agree  in  order  against  Mark,  though  one  or 
other  may  diverge  from  it  independently. 

9.     Lanc;uage  and  Style. 

The  Second  Gospel  contains  some  Latin  words  in 
Greek  form  (see  iv.  21,  v.  9,  vi.  27,  vii.  4,  xii.  14  f.,  42, 
XV.  15,  39,  44).  But  such  '  Latinisms  ',  as  they  have  been 
called,  are  really  cases  of  colloquial  Greek,  though  their 
number  points  to  a  partially  Latin  environment.  More- 
over, even  if  the  Gospel  was  meant  specially  for  readers 
in  Rome  (but  see  below),  colloquial  Greek  would  still,  at 
that  date,  have  been  the  most  natural  language  in  which 
to  write.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  written,  not  in 
Latin,  but  in  Greek. 

Recently  Mark  has  been  taken  to  have  been  written 
originally  in  Aramaic,  the  vernacular  of  the  Holy  Land 
at  the  time.  This  opinion  is  based  mostly  on  arguments 
drawn  partly  from  certain  idioms  which  occur  or  even 
prevail  in  it,  and  partly  from  the  fact  that  it  preserves 
for  us  morewords  of  Jesus  in  the  vernacular  than  we  have 
in  all  the  other  Gospels.  The  hst  includes  Boanerges 
(iii.  17),  Talitha  aimi  {v.^i),  Corban  (vii.  11),  Epliphatha 
(vii.  34),  Bartlmmis  (x.  46),  Abba  (xiv.  36),  Golgotha 
(xv.  22),  Eloi/  Eloi  I  lama  sabachthatiif  (xv.  34).  But 
the  facts  prove  no  more  than  that  our  Mark  rests  directly 
on  Aramaic  tradition,  and  was  written  by  one  familiar  with 
Aramaic.  He  has  a  marked  preference  for  'the  his- 
toric present'  tense,  which  conduces  much  to  vividness 
of  narrative;  and  the  like  applies  to  his  favourite 
particle  '  straightway '  or  '  forthwith  ',  especially  in  the 
phrase  '  and  forthwith '  (see  further  Allen's  Introduction 
to    his    Commentary   on   Mark,   pp.  12-26).     Dr.  J.  H. 


28  ST.  MARK 

Moulton  writes  [Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  p.  491)  : 
'  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  catechetical  lessons, 
on  which  the  written  Gospel  was  ultimately  based,  were 
given  first  in  Aramaic  :  and  they  may  well  have  become 
so  fixed  in  that  form  that  when  their  author  transferred 
them  to  Greek  they  retained  ubiquitous  marks  of  too 
literal  translation.  It  is  of  great  critical  importance  to 
observe  how  these  Aramaisms  of  translation  were  pro- 
gressively smoothed  away.  .  .  .  There  is  plenty  of  revision 
of  Mark's  Aramaism  to  be  seen  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 
.  .  .  Mark's  "  Semitisms  "...  are  hardly  ever  really  bar- 
barous Greek,  though  his  extremely  vernacular  language 
often  makes  us  think  so,  until  we  read  the  less  educated 
papyri.  Generally  we  recognize  them  by  thdr  over-use 
of  a  possible  though  uncommon  idiom  which  happens  to 
agree  with  Aramaic'  The  theory  that  our  Mark  was 
written  in  Aramaic  also  fails  to  do  justice  to  those 
qualities  of  the  Gospel,  as  we  now  have  it,  which  make 
it  difficult  to  regard  it  as  a  translation  or  a  secondary 
composition.  Hence  it  is  the  general  opinion  that  Mark's 
Gospel  was  written  originally  in  the  language  in  which 
it  has  come  down  to  us,  namely,  Greek.'  With  this  the 
references  to  the  Gospel  in  early  Christian  tradition 
entirely  agree. 

With  this,  too,  the  style  best  agrees.  It  is  not  the 
style  of  a  translator.  It  is  simple  and  direct,  and  at  the 
same  time  free,  unconstrained,  forcible,  and  full  of  life. 
Mark  has  throughout  a  certain  unity  of  grammatical 
and  stylistic  colouring.  Its  manner  in  all  respects  is 
popular  and  effective.  The  sentences  have  usually  no 
elaborated  literary  form,  being  connected  by  the  simplest 
terms,  in  particular  'and' — quite  in  Aramaic  or  Hebrew 
fashion  ;  also  they  are  generally  terse  and  pointed.  Yet, 
when  it  is  necessary,  our  Evangelist  can  use  a  more 
copious  style. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Lagrange,  I^vangile  selon  S.  Marc,  p.  xcvii, 
quoted  by  Allen,  pp.  viii-ix. 


INTRODUCTION  29 

10.  Characteristics  of  Mark's  Gospel. 

Here  again  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  distinction  between 
wliat  was  characteristic  of  Mark's  sources  of  information 
and  what  represents  his  own  point  of  view  and  emphasis, 
though  his  fidelity  to  his  materials  allows  the  former 
to  shine  through  his  narrative  and  give  it  its  main 
features. 

No  careful  reader  can  fail  to  be  conscious  of  large  differ- 
ence between  our  Mark  and  the  other  Gospels.  This  Gospel 
has  qualities  which  give  the  book  a  genius  which  is  quite 
its  own,  and  make  it  full  of  a  simple  charm.  Among  the 
most  noticeable  is  the  plain,  direct  character  of  its  narra- 
tive. There  is  little  of  the  writer's  own  notions  imported 
into  it,  comparatively  little  even  of  the  imprint  of  his  own 
mind,  save  in  the  selection  of  what  he  includes  in  its  brief 
compass.  In  this  respect  it  differs  most  from  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  in  which  the  narrative  bears  so  much  the  stamp 
of  the  author's  own  ways  of  thought  and  forms  of  speech. 
What  Mark  gives  us  in  the  main  is  a  simple,  objective 
report  of  things  as  they  had  come  to  him  in  tradition.  It 
is  not  the  product  of  art,  nor  is  it  a  work  of  much  reflec- 
tion. It  is  a  record  of  facts  as  they  had  impressed  the 
Apostles  generally  and  Peter  in  particular,  and  as  they 
had  taken  shape  in  tradition  at  an  early  stage. 

But  while  all  is  thus  simple,  the  Gospel  has  a  natural 
vividness,  a  sharpness  and  colour  in  its  description,  which 
might  challenge  comparison  with  the  best  achievements 
of  the  art  that  conceals  art.  The  peculiarly  graphic,  life- 
like quality  of  its  narrative  at  once  arrests  attention  ;  and  is 
probably  due  to  the  early  nature  of  the  traditions  used. 
It  makes  us  see  things  as  if  they  were  beneath  our  own 
eye.  Thus  it  often  uses  the  direct  form  of  speech,  as 
'  Come  ye  yourselves  apart'  (vi.  31).  Thus,  too,  in  many 
cases  a  single  word  or  phrase  contains  a  picture  in  itself, 
and  makes  a  scene  real  to  us.  Look,  for  example,  at  the 
descriptions  of  the  Baptist  '  stooping  down ',  like  a  slave, 


30  ST.  MARK 

to  unloose  the  shoe-latchet  of  a  Greater  (1.7);  of  the  people 
seated  *  in  ranks  '  or  '  row  upon  row '  on  '  the  green  grass ' 
(vi.  39  f.) ;  of  the  *  mooring'  of  the  boat  to  the  Gennesaret 
shore  (vi.  53) ;  of  the  maid  coming  on  Peter  warming 
himself  (xiv.  66).  So  in  the  story  of  the  Paralytic  we  see 
the  crowd  about  the  door,  the  sick  man  '  borne  of  four ', 
the  breaking  up  of  the  roof,  the  sufferer  arising  straight- 
way, taking  up  his  bed,  and  'going  forth  in  sight  of  all ' 
cured  (ii.  1-12).  Take  again  the  description  of  the  storm 
on  the  lake— the  winds  roaring,  the  waves  dashing  upon 
the  small  vessel  and  beginning  to  fill  it,  the  Master  on  the 
pillow  in  the  deep  sleep  of  weariness,  the  terror  of  the 
disciples,  the  waking  of  the  Lord,  the  authoritative  word, 
the  instant  peace  (iv.  35-41),  The  same  is  the  case  with 
the  story  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  ;  the  healing 
of  the  blind  man  (viii.  22-26)  ;  the  description  of  the  dumb 
spirit  *  convulsing '  the  child  in  the  act  of  coming  out  of 
him  (ix.  26).  Nor  should  we  omit  Mark's  version  of  the 
story  of  the  Transfiguration  (see  notes,  ad  loc). 

This  Gospel  is  remarkable,  then,  for  a  certain  quality 
which,  for  lack  of  a  better  term,  may  be  called  its  realism 
(cf.  A.  B.  Bruce,  With  Open  Face,  ch.  ii).  It  is  as  if  the 
eye  of  the  writer  were  upon  the  objects  and  his  pen  fol- 
lowed his  eye.  His  narrative  has  a  circumstantial 
character  which  shews  itself  not  merely  in  its  large  effects, 
but  in  a  multitude  of  minute  touches.  It  means  reproduc- 
tion rather  than  representation.  This  Gospel  is  rich  in 
particulars  of  persons,  times,  numbers,  positions,  and  the 
like.  It  speaks  of  Simon  of  Cyrene  as  '  fcXther  of  Alexander 
and  Rufus'  (xv.  21);  of  Joseph  of  Arimatha^a  (xv.  43); 
of  Peter  as  going  out  '  into  the  porch  *  immediately 
before  the  cock  crew  (xiv.  6"],  68).  It  shews  us  the  swine 
rushing  *  down  the  steep  into  the  sea,'  and  tells  us  they  were 

*  about  two  thousand'  (v.  13).    It  notices  how  the  disciples 
were  sent  forth  'two  and  two'  (vi.  7) ;    how  the  centurion 

*  stood  by,  over  against  Jesus '  (xv.  39) ;  how  the  people 
were  made  to  sit  down  '  in  ranks,  by  hundreds,  and  by 


INTRODUCTION  31 

fifties '  (vi.  40) ;  how  Jesus  went  to  pray,  rising  up  *  a  great 
while  before  day'  (i.  35).  It  tells  us  how  he  'sat  in  the 
sea'  (iv.  i)  ;  how  he  'sat  down  over  against  the  treasury' 
(xii.  41) ;  how  he  '  sat  on  the  mount  of  Olives,  over  against 
the  temple  '  (xiii.  3). 

Nor  is  it  only  the  incidents  themselves  that  Mark's 
Gospel  reproduces  in  this  distinct  and  circumstantial  way; 
it  does  the  same  with  the  impressions  left  upon  the  spec- 
tators and  hearers.  It  depicts  the  wonder  and  awe  with 
which  Christ's  words  were  listened  to  and  his  mighty  deeds 
witnessed.  It  shews  us  the  fear,  the  astonishment,  the 
sore  amazement  of  the  disciples  (iv,  41,  vi.  51,  x.  24,  26). 
It  shews  us,  too,  the  eagerness,  the  impetuosity,  the  un- 
restrained insistence  of  the  people  as  they  thronged  and 
pressed  him,  till  they  left  him  and  those  with  him  scarce 
room  to  stand,  or  sit  down,  or  even  to  eat  (ii.  2,  iii.  10,  20, 
32,  iv.  I,  v.  21,  31,  vi.  31,  33,  viii.  i).  A  special  aspect  of 
the  Marcan  realism  is  what  Professor  Burkitt  calls  its  '  un- 
ecclesiastical  unconventionality '  (see  The  Gospel  History, 
59 f.),  e.g.  the  candour  shewn  in  dealing  with  the  short- 
comings and  failures  of  the  Apostles,  in  spite  of  the  high 
reverence  for  them  felt  during  the  apostolic  age,  and 
especially  towards  its  close.  This  comes  out  more  clearly 
by  comparison  with  the  other  Synoptics,  both  generally 
and  where  they  are  parallel  to  Mark  (see  iv.  13,  40,  vi.  52, 
viii.  17,  33,  i.x.  6,  10,  32,  34,  x.  24,  35,  45,  xiv.  40,  50). 

Its  narrative  has  also  the  qualities  of  movement  and 
activity.  Its  chief  concern  is  with  what  Jesus  did  and 
what  he  experienced.  This  Gospel  might  be  called  '  the 
Acts  of  Jesus  '  ;  and  in  reporting  these  acts  it  proceeds 
from  one  to  another  in  a  rapid  and  direct  fashion,  and  its 
favourite  connecting  word  is  '  straightway '.  It  makes 
little  attempt  to  shew  the  connexions  of  things,  or  to  link 
one  part  of  its  narrative  to  another  by  any  device  of  the 
literary  craftsman's  art.  It  plunges  in  medias  res  with  the 
minimum  of  explanatory  preface,  taking  up  at  once  its 
proper  subject— the  public  ministry  of  Christ.    It  takes  us 


-32  ST.  MARK 

from  one  thing  to  another  by  transitions  which  seem  at 
times  abrupt. 

The  Gospel  also  gives  a  special  view  of  the  central  Figure 
himself.  Each  of  the  four  Gospels  here  makes  its  charac- 
teristic contribution,  and  has  its  own  way  of  setting  forth 
Jesus'  personality  and  his  life.  Mark's  is  the  simplest  and 
the  most  objective.  He  does  not  dwell,  as  Matthew  does, 
on  the  Messianic  relations  of  Jesus  and  the  fulfilment  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy  in  his  life  and  ministry.  Neither 
does  he  make  it  a  primary  object,  as  Luke  does,  to  bring 
before  his  readers  those  aspects  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and 
his  intercourse  with  different  types  of  humanity,  which 
shew  him  to  be  a  Redeemer  suited  to  all  kinds  of  sinners, 
a  Friend  meant  for  men  of  all  ranks,  nationalities,  and 
characters.  Far  less  does  he  exhibit  the  eternal  antece- 
dents of  his  life  and  the  higher  mysteries  of  his  person,  as 
John  does.  Some  of  these  things  are  in  his  Gospel,  but 
they  are  not  there  in  the  proportions  which  they  have  in 
the  others.  He  is  content  to  set  Jesus  before  others  just 
as  he  had  himself  learned  to  see  him  moving  about  in 
Galilee  and  Judaea,  a  man  among  men,  mixing  freely  with 
the  different  classes  of  Jewish  people  to  be  found  in  these 
parts,  doing  good  continually,  performing  mighty  deeds, 
and  speaking  words  of  grace  which  impressed  many  with 
the  sense  that  he  was  a  prophet,  if  not  more  than  a  pro- 
phet, and  some  few  with  the  growing  hope  and  faith  that 
he  was  none  other  than  God's  Anointed  or  Messiah. 

In  this  connexion  the  Second  Gospel  has  certain  features 
which  are  less  prominent  in  the  others.  It  notes,  for 
example,  Jesus'  retirement,  for  one  cause  or  another,  at 
important  points  in  his  public  ministry.  It  tells  us— followed 
sometimes  by  Matt,  or  Luke — how  he  withdrew  to  *a 
solitary  place  '  after  the  first  deeds  of  healing  (i.  35,  cf.  45) 
and  after  the  murder  of  the  Baptist  (vi.  30-32)  ;  to  'the 
borders  of  Tyre,'  after  the  opposition  of  the  party  of  the 
Pharisees  (vii.  24)  ;  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Ctesarea 
Philippi  (viii.  27) ;  to  the  range  of  Harmon,  after  the  first 


INTRODUCTION  33 

announcement  of  his  coming  Passion  (ix.  2).  Further,  it 
notices  how  Jesus  acted,  looked,  and  comported  himself. 
On  not  a  few  occasions  it  records  his  attitudes,  gestures, 
and  movements.  It  brings  him  before  us  as  he  '  looked 
round  about  with  anger'  in  the  synagogue  (iii.  5)  ;  as  he 
'turned  him  about  in  the  crowd'  (v.  ^o) ',  as  he  'turned 
about,  and  on  seeing  his  discipJes '  rebuked  Peter 
(viii.  33) ;  as  he  '  was  going  before  them,'  alone  and  with 
a  mien  which  awed  his  followers,  on  his  way  to  what 
awaited  him  in  Jerusalem  (x.  32) ;  and  yet  again  as  he 
'looked  round  about  upon  all  things'  in  the  profaned 
temple  (xi.  li).  It  tells  us,  too,  how  he  'sat  down,  and 
called  the  Twelve '  (ix.  35)  ;  how  he  '  looked  up  to  heaven ' 
when  he  took  the  loaves  and  the  fishes  on  the  occasion  of 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  (vi.  41),  and  when  (in  Mark 
only)  he  healed  the  deaf  man  who  had  the  impediment  in 
his  speech  (vii.  34).  When  it  relates  the  incident  of  the  rich 
young  ruler,  it  tells  us  how  Jesus  '  looking  upon  him  loved 
him,'  and  '  looked  round  about '  when  he  spoke  to  his 
disciples  (x.  21,  23).  And  when  he  'took  a  little  child' 
and  set  him  before  the  disputing  disciples,  it  adds  '  taking 
him  in  his  arms'  (ix.  36,  cf.  x.  16). 

This  Gospel,  therefore,  more  even  than  its  fellows,  pre- 
sents Jesus  in  the  reality  of  his  proper  and  complete 
hiunanity.  This  is  particularly  the  case  as  regards  his 
emotions,  whether  of  anger  (i.  43,  ill.  5,  x.  14),  disappoint- 
ment (viii.  12),  sympathy  (i.  41,  vii.  34),  wonder  (vi.  6), 
distress  (xiv.  y^,,  cf,  36).  There  is  also  reference  to  limi- 
tation of  ability  (vi.  5)  and  of  knowledge  (xiii.  32,  cf. 
xi.  13). 

But  it  also  presents  him  as  wielding  superhuman  poiver. 
It  gives  a  large  place  to  his  deeds  of  might,  not  only  by 
way  of  healing,  including  exorcism,  but  also  of  power  over 
inanimate  Nature  on  several  special  occasions.  It  dwells 
also  on  the  impression  produced  by  both  upon  the  people 
and  upon  his  disciples  (i.  27,  ii.  12,  vi.  51,  vii.  37)  ;  and 
records    how    the    multitudes  even  thought  it  enough  if 

D 


34  ST.  MARK 

they  could  but  touch  his  garments  (i.  32,  iii.  10,  v.  28, 
vi.  56).  Yet  withal  Jesus  is  not  in  Mark's  Gospel  taken 
out  of  the  category  of  humanity  and  the  conditions  of 
dependence  on  God  for  everything  proper  to  manhood, 
according  to  Peter's  description  of  him  in  Acts  (ii.  22)  as 
a  '  man  of  God  marked  out  by  mighty  works  and  wonders 
and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him.'  See  further  what  is 
said  on  the  conception  of  Jesus  as  'Son  of  God'  towards 
the  end  of  §  14. 


II.    Readers,  Destination,  and  Aim. 

Internal  evidence  points  to  Gentile  readers  as  more 
immediately  in  view  in  Mark's  Gospel.  It  is  in  the  habit, 
for  example,  of  interpreting  the  Aramaic  terms  and  phrases 
which  it  occasionally  introduces.  So,  too,  it  is  accustomed 
to  explain  Jewish  customs,  seasons,  and  the  like— though 
some  of  these  may  be  glosses  by  a  later  hand  (see  notes  on 
vii.  2-4,  xii.  42,  xiv.  12,  xv.  42).  The  way  in  which  the 
Old  Testament  is  treated  has  also  its  significance.  It  has 
a  much  smaller  place  in  Mark  than  it  has  in  the  other 
Evangelists,  especially  in  the  form  of  explicit  quotations  : 
and  most  of  these  follow  the  text  of  the  Greek  Septuagint 
Version.  They  also  belong  almost  entirely  to  the  reports 
of  sayings  occurring  in  the  narrative,  and  not  to  the 
Evangelist  himself.  The  solitary  case  of  the  kind  is 
probably  ch.  i.  3.  In  like  manner  the  Jewish  Law  is  not 
named  as  such.  This  Gospel  speaks,  indeed,  of  the 
'Commandments'  of  God  (vii.  8,  x.  19,  &c.),  but  not  of 
the  *  Law.' 

A  good  deal  of  the  more  specific  evidence,  such  as  it  is, 
suggests  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  addressed  to  readers 
largely  of  Roman  culture.  Its  '  Latinisms '  (see  §  9)  do 
not  indeed  prove  much  as  to  the  exact  locality,  e.g.  Rome  ; 
for  more  or  less  Romanized  circles  existed  in  the  East. 
But  the  marked  prevalence  of  '  Latinisms,'  even  though 


INTRODUCTION    .  35 

of  the  kind  already  in  general  colloquial  use  in  the 
East,  and  particularly  certain  explanatioHs  of  Greek 
luords  by  Roman  ^«^j— like  xii.  42,  where  a  Greek  coin 
(the  lepton)  is  explained  by  reference  to  a  Roman  one 
{quadratis),  and  xv.  16,  'within  the  court,  which  is  the 
Proeiorium' — distinctly  suggests  a  Church  some  at  least 
of  whose  members  knew  Latin.'  Still  there  is  nothing 
really  decisive  for  Rome  being  that  Church,  either  on 
internal  or  external  evidence.  Clement  of  Alexandria  is 
the  first  who  explicitly  gives  the  tradition  of  this  Gospel's 
origin  in  terms  of  Rome,  though  it  is  possible  that  the 
idea  really  started  with  Papias.  But  beyond  Papias  it 
is  impossible  to  carry  it  back  in  tradition,^  e.g.  to  the 
Elder  whom  Papias  cites  for  the  fact  that  Mark  owed  his 
qualifications  for  writing  a  Gospel  to  his  former  connexion 
with  Peter  as  '  interpreter.'  And  as  regards  Papias  him- 
self, he  probably  reached  the  notion  of  Mark's  having 
written  his  Gospel  in  Rome  (if  he  really  had  it)  as  an 
inference  from  the  Evangelist's  presence  in  Rome  with 
Peter  during  the  latter's  last  days,  as  implied  in  i  Peter 
V.  13.  Nor  can  he  have  laid  stress  on  the  point ;  for 
Irenaeus  (ill.  i.  1)  quite  ignores  it.^  The  Elder,  on  the 
other  hand,  makes  no  allusion  at  all  to  Peter's  having  been 
in  Rome,  or  to  the  stage  in  his  life  at  which  Mark  was  his 
'  interpreter.' 

There  is  really  as  much  to  be  said  for  the  view  that 


'  It  is  to  be  noted,  moreover,  that  if  there  is  good  reason 
for  suspecting  that  the  words  '  which  is  the  Praetorium ' 
(xv.  16)  are,  as  Blass  says,  a  mistranslation  of  the  Greek  {aul^), 
which  really  means  the  'courtj^ard  '  of  the  Governor's  palace, 
then  the  clause  is  a  later  gloss  and  not  Mark's  own  ;  and  in 
the  light  of  this  it  would  be  natural  to  treat  the  similarly  phrased 
equivalent  'which  make  a  qtiadratis'  (xii.  42)  as  also  a  gloss. 

^  See  B.  W.  Bacon,  Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel?  (191a),  pp. 
14-19. 

3  Clement's  story  of  the  genesis  of  Mark's  Gospel  in  Rome, 
with  Peter's  sanction  after  the  event,  perhaps  depends  on  a 
lost  Acta  Petri. 


36  ST.  MARK 

Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  at  Antioch,  on  returning  to  the 
East  after  Peter's  martyrdom.     P'or 

(i)  This  best  suits  the  channel  of  Papias's  knowledge  of 
this  Gospel's  origin  being  (John)  the  Presbyter,  who 
worked  in  the  East,  possibly  in  Antioch  for  a  while,  before 
going  on  to  Asia. 

(2)  Peter  was  connected  with  the  Antiochene  Church 
and  remained  in  high  honour  there. 

(3)  The  reference  to  Alexander  and  Rufus  as  sons  of 
Simon  of  Cyrene  (surely  no  early  gloss)  fits  (a)  the  fact 
that  '  men  of  Cyrene '  were  among  the  first  planters  of 
Antiochene  Christianity  (Acts  xi.  20,  cf.  xiii.  l),  {/>)  the 
possibility  that  Simon's  sons  were  well  known  there  as 
Christian  leaders — as  one  of  them  may  have  been  at  Rome 
also,  to  judge  from  Paul's  salutation  of  '  Rufus  the  elect  in 
the  Lord,  and  his  mother  and  mine,'  in  Rom.  xvi.  13. 
The  reference  to  the  mother  strongly  suggests  that  Paul 
knew  her  and  her  son  personally ;  if  so,  then  at  Antioch 
(Paul  had  not  at  the  time  visited  Rome),  whence  the  first 
missionaries  of  the  Gospel  in  Rome  may  well  have 
anigrated  (cf.  Andronicus  and  Junia(s),  Rom.  xvi.  7). 

(4)  The  occasional  quotation  of  words  of  Jesus  in 
their  original  Aramaic  form  would  be  more  natural  in 
Syria,  where  Aramaic  was  known  by  some  Greeks  and 
Romans,  than  in  Rome  where  this  would  not  be  (he  case. 
Similarly  the  Semitic  order  '  night  and  day'  (v.  5,  cf.iv.  27) 
points  the  same  way, 

(5)  Antioch  was  a  great  centre  of  Roman  culture,  being 
the  seat  of  the  Governor  of  Syria,  and  the  place  where 
'  Christians '  first  received  that  name  on  the  model  of 
Roman  political  factions. 

(6)  Origin  in  Antioch  rather  than  Rome  would  best 
explain  the  phenomena  of  the  very  early  use  of  Mark's 
Gospel  by  the  other  two  Synoptics,  which  either  belong 
both  to  this  region,  or  one  to  it  and  the  other  (Luke) 
perhaps  to  the  province  of  Asia,  which  was  in  close  touch 
with  N.  Syria.     This  argument  would  be  further  fortified, 


INTRODUCTION  37 

if  the  view  (suggested  in  the  notes)  were  accepted,  that 
the  original  ending  of  St.  Mark  was  removed  at  least  directly 
after  our  Matthew  was  composed  by  its  aid,  as  also 
before  it  was  used  by  Luke.  Otherwise  some  traces  of  the 
true  ending  could  hardly  fail  to  have  survived  in  one 
region  or  another  (especially  Rome),  where  Mark's  quasi- 
Petrine  Gospel  had  already  become  known  and  revered. 

(7)  The  number  and  unexplained  character  of  the 
geographical  names  belonging  to  Galilee  and  Judaea, 
which  Mark  lets  fall  from  his  pen,  suits  the  adjacent 
Antioch  far  better  than  the  remote  Rome.  So  also  the 
warning  in  xiii.  14,  '  Then  let  them  that  are  in  Jttdcea  flee 
unto  the  mountains' ;  while  the  allusive  reference  to  'the 
Mountain'  or  hill-region  in  iii.  13,  implies  knowledge  of 
the  topography  of  the  N.W.  side  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee. 

(S)  Finally,  had  Rome  really  been  its  place  of  origin,  it 
is  hard  to  explain  how  no  local  tradition  to  that  effect  can 
be  traced  in  that  Church,  which  yet  so  highly  valued  its 
own  connexion  with  Peter  and  all  that  tended  to  emphasize 
him  as  the  prime  authority  for  its  tradition.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Roman  Hippolytus's  rather  depreciatory  allusion 
{Refutatio,  vii.  30)  to  this  Gospel  as  '  Mark  the  curtailed' 
(lit.  *  stumpy-fingered  ')  points  the  other  way. 

The  most  recent  thorough  discussion  of  the  provenance  of 
Mark's  Gospel  is  Professor  B.  W.  Bacon's  Is  Mark  a  Roman 
Gospel?  While  he  sums  up  in  the  affirmative,  he  recognizes 
that  Antioch  would  do  almost  equally  well.  His  arguments 
against  the  latter  view  are  quite  inconclusive,  while  he  does 
not  notice  several  of  those  given  above.  He  rightly  urges 
that  the  early  prestige  of  Mark's  Gospel,  in  spite  of  its  non- 
apostolic  authorship,  and  its  incomplete  nature  as  compared 
with  the  full  tradition  of  Jesus'  sayings  as  well  as  his  deeds 
(which  later  led  to  a  period  of  relative  obscurity),  was  probably 
due  in  part  to  the  Church  from  the  bosom  of  which  it  emerged 
(p.  38).  But  in  the  sixties  Antioch,  not  Rome,  was  almost 
certainly  the  largest  and  most  influential,  as  it  was  also  the 
Mother-Church,  of  Greek-speaking  and  Gentile  Christianity. 


38  ST.  MARK 

It  was,  too,  a  city  in  which  Peter  was  personally  known 
and  highly  regarded  as  the  chief  of  Jesus'  original  apostles  ; 
and  here,  too,  Mark  had  doubtless  acted  as  his  dragoman.  It 
would  be  far  more  natural  for  Mark  to  cite  Jesus'  words 
occasionally  in  their  original  Aramaic  form  in  Antioch,  the 
capital  of  Syria,  where  Aramaic  would  be  understood  even  by 
some  Greeks  and  Romans,  than  in  Rome,  where  it  would  be 
quite  out  of  place,  and  indeed  at  a  discount  as  a  '  barbarous ' 
Eastern  dialect.  On  the  other  hand,  the  '  Latinisms'  he  uses 
would  be  familiar  to  many  at  Antioch.  He  may,  too,  have 
written  specially  for  a  Roman  friend  (cf.  Luke's  *  Theophilus') 
or  circle  there. 

As  to  its  author's  aim  in  writing,  we  may  agree  with 
Menzies,  when  he  says  (p.  36) :  '  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel, 
. . .  not  with  a  view  to  Church  use,  but  for  the  information  of 
the  brethren  on  a  subject  which  was  very  important  for 
them,  and  had  not  yet  been  put  in  a  connected  form.  He 
had  reminiscences  which  he  desired  to  put  in  writing 
before  they  were  lost  to  the  world  [their  prime  witness, 
Peter,  having  just  passed  off  the  scene], and  he  workedthese 
up  into  a  complete  statement,  along  with  the  better  known 
traditions,'  touching  the  Gospel  as  presented  in  the 
ministry  of  its  Founder.  The  work  was,  no  doubt,  meant 
primarily  for  Christian  edification.  But  it  would  serve 
also  to  supply  Christians  with  valuable  data  for  explanation 
and  justification  to  any  who  might,  as  Peter  had  recently 
put  it  in  his  Epistle  (iii.  15),  'ask  an  account  touching  the 
faith  '  that  was  in  them.  Indeed  it  may  well  be  that  alike 
in  aim  and  occasion  Mark's  Gospel  was  largely  continuous 
with  the  Epistle  of  Peter,  which  was  written,  probably 
about  63,  to  Churches  in  Asia  Minor,  at  a  time  when 
persecution  was  becoming  more  severe  and  menacing. 
The  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  many  others  at  Rome  in  64 
would  create  a  fresh  need  for  all  possible  means  of  assur- 
ance. Such  unexpected  sufferings,  instead  of  an  immediate 
share  in  Messiah's  glory,  were  not  really  out  of  keeping 
with  the  promises  of  the  Gospel,  and  so  with  its  truth. 


INTRODUCTION  39 

The  best  answer  here  was  the  example  of  their  Lord  and 
Saviour  himself,  on  the  lines  already  laid  down  in  Peter's 
own  epistle.  There  the  image  of  Jesus  as  the  pattern 
of  meek  yet  heroic  suffering,  in  reliance  on  God  and 
His  righteous  judgement  in  the  end,  is  set  forth  most 
impressively,  largely  as  the  fulfilment  of  Is.  liii.  A  similar 
lesson  seems  to  be  intended  by  the  special  selection  of 
materials  discernible  in  our  Mark,  the  author  of  which 
had  been  Peter's  companion  when  he  wrote  i  Peter  (see 
V.  12).  What  more  natural,  then,  than  that  after  Peter's 
own  martyrdom  at  Rome,  in  the  footsteps  of  his  Lord, 
Mark  should,  in  some  part  of  the  tried  Church  of  Christ 
with  which  he  had  old  ties,^  and  to  which  he  would 
naturally  repair  on  his  leader's  death,  write  a  contribution 
of  his  own  to  the  pressing  problems  of  the  hour  ?  These 
would  centre  in  the  question,  '  Why,  if  Jesus  be  really 
God's  Messiah,  was  he  rejected  by  the  Jewish  people  and 
their  religious  leaders,  and  his  "Gospel"  judged  by  these 
not  to  be  of  God  ? '  So  viewed,  Mark's  Gospel  has  that 
practical  and  apologetic  purpose,  that  vital  touch  with  the 
Hfe  of  the  Church,  which  all  analogy  leads  us  to  look  for  in 
any  early  Christian  writing.  And  his  contribution  equally 
naturally  took  the  form  of  a  Gospel,  and  a  Gospel  full  of 
Petrine  touches  of  memory,  seeing  that  he  had  been  the 
interpreter  of  Peter,  and  his  instructor  of  converts  in  the 
Petrine  traditions  of  Christ's  ministry  and  teaching. 

All  this  helps  to  explain  the  emphasis  on  the  Cross  in 
Mark  ;  for  this  Gospel  has  been  described  as  '  a  history  of 
the  Passion  expanded  backwards,'  so  large  a  proportion 
of  the  Gospel  deals  with  that  great  climax  of  the  ministry.  It 
also  helps  to  explain  the  length  with  which  the  martyrdom 
of  the  Forerunner  is  described  in  Mark,  as  distinct  from 

^  Such  as  Aiitioch,  where,  as  in  N.  Syria  generally — to 
which  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  with  its  reference  to  the  death 
of  Peter  at  the  hands  of  Nero  (iv.  3),  may  safely  be  assigned 
—  Peter's  martyrdom  would  produce  a  specially  painful  im- 
pression. 


40  ST.   MARK 

the  other  Synoptics.     It  has,  too,  a  suggestive  bearing  on 
the  question  of  date,  dealt  with  in  the  next  section. 

Mark's  aim  had  thus  a  good  deal  in  common  with  that 
set  forth  by  Luke  in  the  preface  to  his  Gospel.  But  it  was 
more  directly  and  simply  religious,  in  a  practical  sense,  and 
less  reflective  and  historical,  than  that  animating  the  work 
of  his  more  cultured  successor,  who  felt  that  Mark's 
pioneer  '  attempt '  left  something  to  be  desired,  from  the 
special  point  of  view  from  which  his  own  Gospel  was 
written.  Unlike  the  First  Gospel,  '  Mark  does  not  use  the 
argument  from  prophecy  to  shew  that  Jesus  was  Messiah,' 
in  spite  of  all  difficulties  which  this  belief  involved  for 
Pharisaic  Judaism.  That  is  rather  the  work  of  a  theo- 
logian, 'a.  character  our  author  rarely  assumes.  His  proof 
is  different :  it  is  that  from  the  impression  Jesus  made  in 
his  life,  both  by  his  preaching  and  in  his  acts  and  his 
encounters  with  opponents.  This  proof,  culminating  in 
the  word  of  the  centurion  at  the  Cross  (xv.  39),  "  Certainly 
this  man  was  the  [or  a]  Son  of  God  "...  was  a  simple 
and  effective  one,  which  would  appeal  to  Gentiles  more 
readily  than  that  from  prophecy'  (Menzies,  p.  37). 

Finally,  as  to  the  peculiar  '  Pauline  '  features,  or  ever 
character,  alleged  of  this  Gospel,  they  are  not  sustained  b] 
any  sufficient  body  of  facts.  The  theory  is  founded  01. 
precarious  inferences,  drawn  not  only  from  certain  typically 
Pauline  ideas  thought  to  mingle  with  the  narrative  and  the 
words  of  Jesus,  but  also  from  such  things  as  the  promi- 
nence given  in  Mark  to  certain  shortcomings  on  the  part  of 
the  original  disciples,  their  dullness  in  spiritual  discern- 
ment, their  lack  of  power  on  certain  occasions,  and  things 
of  that  kind,  frankly  recorded  (cf.  ch.  ix.  10-12,  18,  19,  32, 
38,  Sec).  But  for  the  most  part  the  exegesis  upon  which 
the  argument  rests  is  very  dubious,  or  the  facts  have  really 
another  meaning  than  that  thus  assigned  to  them.  The 
most  that  can  fairly  be  asserted  in  the  way  of  '  Paulinisms,' 
e.g.  as  regards  the  'hardening  of  heart'  in  those  who  did 
not  accept  Jesus  and  his  Gospel,  is  what  seems  true  also 


INTRODUCTION  41 

of  the  Apocalyptic  Eschatology  in  Mark,  viz.  a  certain 
enhancement  of  ideas  present  already  in  Jesus'  own  teach- 
ing, but  carried  further  in  the  experience  and  thought  of 
the  Apostolic  age. 

12.    Date. 

The  question  of  date  is  left  rather  indeterminate  by 
the  Gospel  itself;  nor  does  ancient  historical  testimony 
speak  with  precision  on  the  subject.  Apart  from  extreme 
views,  such  as  c.  44-49  (connected  with  the  theory  of  an 
Aramaic  original),  and  a  date  after  A.D.  70,  the  bulk  of 
recent  scholars  lean  to  the  years  during  or  just  before 
the  Jewish  war  of  66-70.  J.  Weiss's  suggestion,  64-66,  is 
as  good  as  any  ;  and  it  is  confirmed  by  the  special  aim 
and  occasion  of  Mark's  Gospel  as  suggested  above. 
Those  who  suppose  that  this  Gospel,  as  we  have  it,  is 
not  the  original  I\Iark,  but  that  a  more  primitive  version 
of  the  Evangelist's  narrative  once  existed,  naturally  argue 
for  a  somewhat  later  date.  But  the  theory  of  an  '  original 
Mark'  {Ur-Markiis)  is  itself  very  precarious,  and  is  in- 
creasingly so  regarded,  in  spite  of  a  few  scholars  (e.g. 
Wendling,  whose  views  are  discussed  in  Oxford  Studies 
in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  ch.  xiii),  who  still  hold  it  in  ever 
new  forms. 

How  does  the  case  stand,  then,  in  the  matter  of 
ancient  historical  testimony  ?  Apart  from  Eusebius,  who 
in  his  Chronicle  connects  Mark's  Gospel  with  the  third 
year  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  (a.d.  43),  but  has  no  real 
historical  basis  for  this,  only  one  witness  need  here  be 
reckoned  with.  Irenceus,  in  the  third  book  of  his  treatise 
Against  Heresies,  having  said  that  '  Peter  and  Paul 
preached,  and  founded  the  Church,  in  Rome,'  adds  that, 
'after  the  departure  of  these,'  Mark  'delivered  to  us  in 
writing  the  things  which  were  preached  by  Peter.'  As 
the  words  '  after  the  departure  of  these '  are  usually 
understood,  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  did  not  take 


42  ST.  MARK 

place  till  after  the  decease  of  Peter  and  Paul.  The  death 
of  Peter  took  place,  in  all  probability,  in  the  Neronian 
persecution  of  A.  D.  64,  and  Irenaeus's  testimony  therefore 
points  to  the  period  shortly  afterwards  as  the  date  of  the 
Gospel.  But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  Irenaeus  had 
any  definite  knowledge  on  the  point  (see  B.  W.  Bacon, 
Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel?,  esp.  pp.  20 f.,  for  Papias  as 
the  fountain-head  of  later  views  and  inferences). 

Whether  we  can  be  more  precise  depends  on  the 
interpretation  we  put  on  a  few  things  in  the  writing  itself. 
Of  these  the  most  important  are  the  declarations  made 
on  the  things  of  the  End  in  ch.  xiii  (the  very  fulness  of 
which  shews  how  living  was  the  subject  dealt  with), 
especially  those  in  verses  14,  24,  30.  There  is  nothing 
in  this  Gospel  that  points  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
as  a  thing  in  the  past  ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  that 
an  event  of  such  moment  as  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish 
state  and  its  religious  centre,  if  it  had  recently  occurred, 
could  have  left  no  trace  in  a  narrative  like  this.  Further, 
the  Return  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  Man  from  heaven, 
which  was  to  follow  the  Fall  of  the  Temple,  seems  to  be 
included  in  *  all  these  things  '  which  in  xiii.  30  are  stated 
to  be  due  within  '  this  generation,'  i.  e.  that  of  Jesus'  own 
hearers.  On  the  whole,  then,  the  date  of  our  Gospel  may 
be  placed,  with  some  confidence,  about  A.  D.  65  or  within 
a  year  or  two  of  that  time  (see  Note  on  the  Apocalyptic 
Discourse). 

13.    Integrity  of  the  Text. 

We  have  ample  reason  for  accepting  this  Gospel,  in  the 
form  in  which  we  have  it,  as  in  all  essential  points  the 
original  text.  The  documentary  evidence  makes  this 
clear.  There  are  a  good  many  passages  in  which  our 
authorities — manuscripts,  versions,  and  quotations  in 
early  Christian  literature — shew  variations  of  reading. 
But  none  of  these  are  of  serious  moment,  though  some 


INTRODUCTION  43 

are  of  great  interest  as  bearing  on  the  thought  of  the 
early  Church  in  reading  our  Gospel.  Some  of  the  more 
important  instances  will  be  found  in  the  following  vari- 
ants and  renderings  accepted  by  the  R.  V.  in  preference 
to  those  of  the  A.  V. :  '  in  Isaiah  the  prophet,'  instead 
of  *  in  the  prophets '  (i.  2)  ;  '  This  he  said,  making  all 
meats  clean,'  instead  of  *  purging  all  meats  '  (vii.  19) ;  'by 
nothing,  save  by  prayer,'  in  place  of  '  by  nothing,  but  by 
prayer  and  fasting '  (ix.  39).  But  it  is  probable  that  in 
all  the  above  cases  we  have  to  do  with  later  glosses  upon 
Mark's  own  text  (see  notes  ad  loc). 

The  only  question  that  affects  the  right  of  any  consider- 
able section  to  be  received  as  part  of  the  original  text,  is 
in  connexion  with  the  closing  paragraph  (xvi.  9-20).  It 
is  raised  by  the  circumstance  that  the  conclusion  exists 
in  three  different  forms.  There  is  the  longer  form  which 
is  represented  in  our  A.  V.  There  is  the  shorter  form, 
ending  with  the  words  *  for  they  were  afraid '  (xvi.  8),  to 
which,  as  shewn  in  the  R.  V.,  the  following  verses  are  an 
appendix.  There  is  also  another  and  briefer  supplement, 
the  Greek  of  which  is  given  in  Westcott  and  Hort's 
text.  In  the  notes  on  xvi.  8  and  its  sequel  reasons  are 
given  for  regarding  all  forms  of  what  follows  on  xvi.  8 
as  secondary  additions,  meant  to  supply  the  missing 
original  ending;  the  longer  one  being  very  early,  the 
shorter  being  of  later  origin  but  still  relatively  early.  As 
to  the  exact  historical  value  of  the  longer  ending,  some- 
thing depends  on  the  meaning  of  a  piece  of  early  evidence 
bearing  on  its  authorship  which  came  to  light  some 
twenty-five  years  ago.  Dr.  F.  C.  Conybeare  (see  Expositor, 
IV.  viii.  241  fif.)  found  in  an  old  Armenian  manuscript  a 
note  between  xvi.  8  and  9-20  containing  the  words  *  Of 
the  presbyter  Ariston.'  This  Ariston  maybe  the  Aristion 
mentioned  by  Papias  as  one  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord. 
If  so,  it  is  possible  that  this  Ariston  was  a  leading  autho- 
rity in  some  region  where  Mark's  Gospel  was  early  cur- 
rent, about  the  time  that  the  original  ending  disappeared. 


44  ST.  MARK 

and  that  he  composed  the  section  which  replaced  it.  But 
the  idea  may  have  been  only  a  theory  based  upon  the 
fact  that  Aristion  was,  on  Papias"s  testimony,  '  a  disciple 
of  the  Lord  '  and  so  a  fit  person  to  perform  such  a  service. 
See  further  the  introductory  note  to  Mark  xvi.  9  fF. 

14.    Mark's  use  of  his  Sources. 

Besides  the  variety  in  the  sources  on  which  Mark  draws 
(see  §  5),  each  of  which  shews  a  certain  difiference  of  stand- 
point as  well  as  of  materials,  we  have  to  appreciate  the 
special  point  of  view  of  the  Evangelist  himself,  visible  in 
the  handling  of  his  materials  in  the  light  of  his  own  reli- 
gious faith  touching  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus,  as  the 
true  Christ  of  God.  This  aspect  of  the  matter  has  recently 
been  treated  afresh,  and  on  the  whole  justly,  by  the  late 
Johannes  Weiss  in  his  weighty  study  of  'Primitive  Chris- 
tianity' (Z>«J  Urchristentiif/i,  537-549).  As  he  points  out, 
some  of  those  features  of  the  Marcan  Gospel  which  have 
been  felt  to  be  most  distinctive  of  it  are  really  due  to  the 
primary  materials  used,  the  common  Apostolic  tradition, 
enriched  by  additional  Petrine  incidents  and  touches  of 
memory  ;  while  others  represent  its  author's  own  interpre- 
tative ideas,  which  come  out  chiefly  in  the  selection  and 
ordering  of  his  materials,  so  as  to  produce  a  certain  im- 
pression of  Jesus  Christ  as  'the  Son  of  God.' 

In  addition  to  minor  vivid,  realistic  touches — obvious 
transcripts  from  the  historic  facts  themselves,  memories 
faithful  to  original  everyday  details — which  belong  to 
the  original  Apostolic  stratum  of  the  traditions  followed  by 
Mark,  the  Marcan  narrati\e  reflects  also  the  primitive 
impression  of  the  central  figure  himself,  as  it  appears  in 
the  Petrine  preaching  in  Acts,  and  especially  in  the 
address  to  the  Gentile  Cornelius  and  his  friends  (Acts  x). 
There  the  Christ  is  described  as  '  Jesus  of  Nazareth,' 
whom  '  God  atioznted  with  ho/y  Spirit  and  power  ;  who 
went    about    doing    good,    and    healing    all    that    were 


INTRODUCTION  45 

oppressed  of  the  devil:  for  God  was  with  him.'  This  is  quite 
on  the  lines  of  Isaiah  Ixi.  i  ff.,  as  also  of  the  Magnijicat, 
the  Benedictus,  and  the  Nunc  Dimittis,  perhaps  our  best 
witnesses  to  the  outlook  of  early  Judaso-Christianity  in  the 
circles  where  the  common  Apostolic  tradition  (X)  was 
shaped  and  first  handed  down.  That  tradition  dwells  much 
on  '  salvation '  as  sent  of  God  '  to  Israel  his  servant,'  as  '  re- 
demption wrought  for  his  People  '  in  keeping  with  '  his  holy 
Covenant '  with  '  Abraham  and  his  seed  for  ever,'  in  and 
through  One  who  yet  was  to  be  '  a  light  for  revelation  to 
the  Gentiles,'  as  well  as  *  the  glory  of  God's  people,  Israel.' 
It  is  relative  to  this  historical  perspective,  one  continuous 
with  Hebrew  prophecy  (cf.  i  Pet.  i.  10  f,  ii.  _/?;/.),  especially 
Isa.  xl.  ff.,  that  the  figure  of  Jesus,  at  once  as  '  anointed  with 
holy  Spirit  and  power'  and  as  suffering,  appears  in  the 
warp  and  woof  of  the  materials  which  form  the  staple  of 
the  Marcan  Gospel  (see  further,  below,  §  15). 

To  this,  however,  the  Evangelist  adds  a  further  inter- 
pretative element  due  to  more  developed  reflection,  both 
his  own  and  that  of  the  Apostolic  circles  in  which  he  had 
moved.  He  conceives  the  filial  relation  between  Jesus  and 
his  Father  in  heaven,  as  not  only  unique  in  intimacy, 
purity  and  spiritual  power — and  as  the  real  basis  of  his 
Messianic  sonship  as  avocation,  on  the  lines  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  (especially  in  Isaiah)  and  of  Peter's  con- 
fession at  CiEsarea  Philippi  (cf.  Mark  xiv.  61, 'the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Blessed ') — but  also  as  implying  something 
more  and  of  rather  a  different  kind.  For  Mark  himself 
Jesus  is  '  the  Son  of  God '  in  a  more  mysterious  sense,  one 
related  to  another  line  of  Jewish  expectation  than  has  al- 
ready been  referred  to,  that  of  the  '  Apocalyptic '  tradition 
in  Judaism,  which,  starting  from  the  Prophetic,  prolonged 
its  thought  into  the  heavenly  sphere  for  the  full  secret  of 
the  unique  sonship  of  Messiah.  Seizing  upon  the  imagery 
of  Daniel  vii.  13,  where  'one  like  unto  a  son  of  man '  ap- 
pears '  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,'  as  the  representative 
of  God  and  clothed  with  his  glory,  this  mode  of  thought 


46  ST.  MARK 

imagined  a  pre-existent  Son  of  God — the  highest  of  the 
order  of  archangels  in  whom  God's  nature  was  most 
fully  expressed  in  finite  form,  as  it  could  not  be  in  the 
absolute  purity  of  Godhead.  This  being,  in  the  form  of 
God,  was  to  appear  in  human  form,  in  order  to  achieve 
God's  gracious  purpose  towards  and  through  Israel,  of 
which  the  Messianic  idea  in  all  its  forms  was  the  supreme 
expression. 

Jewish  Apocalyptic,  indeed,  had  not  even  attempted  to 
imagine  such  a  pre-existent  being  as  really  living  under 
the  full  limits  of  human  nature— undergoing  a  human 
birth,  developing  in  body  and  soul,  and,  in  a  word,  be- 
coming an  historical  person  with  an  earthly  history.  But 
what  abstract  thought  had  not  ventured  to  essay,  that 
for  Mark,  as  for  Paul  and  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to 
Hebrews,  had  been  actually  achieved  by  the  Divine  wisdom 
and  power  in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  man  and  Son  of  God.  And  so,  as  Johannes 
Weiss  says  (p.  544), '  the  Jesus  of  Mark  is  the  Son  of  God, 
who  is  equipped  [after  death]  with  divine  power  and  divine 
knowledge,  yet  is  also  the  quondam  Jewish  teacher  and 
prophet,  with  human  experiences  and  limited  knowledge 
and  power  ;  in  this  picture  Divinity  and  humanity  win 
their  way  through  {dtirchdrlngen  sick)  to  an  indissoluble 
unity.  Therein  Mark  has  for  all  time  set  the  tone  for  the 
popular  conception  and  for  the  theological  view  of  the 
earthly  Jesus.  For  Mark  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  .  .  . 
such  as  the  daemons  recognized  (v.  7),'  with  a  pre-existent 
Divine  nature  which  he  understood  Jesus  himself  to  point 
to,  when,  in  reply  to  the  high-priest's  challenge,  he  said, 
'  I  am  ("  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ")  :  and  ye  shall  see  the 
Son  of  man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven '  (alluding  to  Dan.  vii.  13).  '  Of 
a  truth  he  understands  the  name,  very  much  as  did  the 
centurion  under  the  Cross  (xv.  39),  quite  in  a  popular  way, 
as  of  a  being  who  is  akin  in  essence  to  God.  Quite  in  the 
popular  manner  also  is  it  that  he  does  not  reflect  how  it 


INTRODUCTION  47 

has  come  about  that  his  Deity  comes  forth  in  human 
form.  .  .  .  This  lack  of  intellectual  apprehension  is  just 
the  distinctive  note  :  the  Evangelist  has,  according  to  this 
tendency  of  his,  no  hankering  after  theological  knowledge.' 
Enough  for  him — as  for  Peter  in  his  Epistle — that  Jesus 
is  the  Son  of  God  in  the  above  religious  sense  :  '  from 
this  Christological  standpoint  the  whole  Gospel  is,  in  the 
intention  of  its  author,  to  be  read '  (ib.  p.  545). 

In  the  light  of  this  dominant  thought  in  its  author's 
mind,  touching  Jesus  the  Christ,  '  the  absence  of  what  we 
should   call    the  *'  biographical "  interest '    from   Mark's 
Gospel,  full  as  it  is  of  realistic  touches,  is  both  natural  and 
significant.     There  is  no  section  dealing  with  Jesus'  life 
prior  to  his  'Gospel'  ministry;  nor  is  there  any  idea  of 
his  psychological  development  during  that  ministry.     If 
Mark's   narrative   contains    data   which   afford   hints   of 
such   a  spiritual  history,  in   the  sense  proper  to  a  truly 
human  experience  (compare  Heb,  v.  7-9  for  recognition  of 
this  in  certain   aspects),  this    is    due    to    his    materials, 
which  he  loyally  embodies  as  trustworthy  records  of  the 
facts  according  to  Divine  ordering  (even  when  on  the  face 
of  them  hard  to  harmonize  with  his  own  ruling  conception, 
as  in  xiii.  32,  xiv.  36,  xv.  34).      Most   significant  of  all, 
there  is  no  sign  that  Mark  conceived  of  any  development 
in  Jesus'  thoughts  as  to  the  course  of  his  Gospel-ministry, 
in  point  of  acceptance  or  rejection  respectively,  which  yet 
the  broad  outlines  of  the  narrative  itself,  due  to  the  basal 
Apostolic  tradition,  and  certain  'water-mark'  traces  run- 
ning through  it,  seem  clearly  to  imply  (see  §  15).     Thus, 
while   Mark  realizes    that    the   disciples   only  gradually 
reached  such  an  insight  into  their  Master's  filial  relation 
to  Cod  as  enabled  them,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  certain 
expected  features  of  the   office,  to   confess   him   as  the 
Messiah  or  Anointed  Deliverer  and  King  of  Israel ;   as 
regards  Jesus'  own  foreknowledge  of  the  actual  path  he 
was  to  tread,  Mark  believes  that  almost  from  the  first  (ii. 
20)  Jesus  foreknew  that  rejection  by  God's  people  was  to 


48  ST.  MARK 

be  his  lot,  even  to  the  point  of  violent  death.  Nor  does 
he  allow  anything  in  this  connexion  for  Jesus'  surprise  at 
the  unreadiness  of  the  people  for  his  Message. 

There  is  a  certain  truth,  too,  in  J.  Weiss's  observation 
that  '  the  thought  that  Jesus  had  had  temptations  to  uni- 
versal human  sins  is  as  remote  from  Mark  as  that  other, 
namely,  to  set  Jesus  forth  as  an  ethical  model  for  his  dis- 
ciples :  the  Son  of  God  can  be  no  model  for  men'  (p.  547 f.) 
— as  regards  the  development  of  moral  character,  as 
distinct  from  the  call  to  cross-bearing.  Jesus'  allusion  to 
'  temptations  '  in  which  the  companionship  of  his  disciples 
had  been  precious  to  hinj  (xxii.  28),  the  Third  Evangelist 
owes  not  to  Mark  but  to  his  own  '  special  source  '.  Again, 
while  those  seem  right  who  see  in  the  sharpness  of  Jesus' 
rebuke  to  Peter's  well-meant  deprecation  of  the  thought 
of  rejection  and  suffering  as  ingredients  of  his  Master's 
cup  (Mark  viii.  32  f.)  the  token  of  a  moral  conflict,  not  yet 
over  for  Jesus  even  at  the  late  stage  represented  by  the 
episode  near  Cssarea  Philippi,  Mark  himself  shews  no 
consciousness  of  this,  however  much  his  materials  may, 
under  more  searching  analysis  than  was  natural  to  him, 
reveal  it  to  us  to-day.  Accordingly,  A.  B.  Bruce  hardly 
stated  the  real  meaning  of  the  phenomena  accurately  when 
he  described  Mark  [IViih  Open  Face,  p.  35)  as  '  unem- 
barrassed by  reverence,'  compared  with  his  fellow  Evange- 
lists, in  that  they  softened  down  or  shunned  taking  over 
certain  elements  in  the  *  realism '  which  characterizes  the 
Marcan  picture  of  Jesus,  particularly  his  strong  emotions 
both  of  anger  and  pity.  The  fact  is  that  the  frank  descrip- 
tions of  the  humanity  of  Jesus  found  in  Mark's  Gospel 
were  not  due  to  Mark,  save  in  the  sense  that  he  did  not 
feel  called  on  or  free  to  suppress  what  came  to  him  through 
good  tradition.  Such  touches  belong  rather  to  the  basal 
Apostolic  tradition  in  its  earliest  known  form. 

On  the  whole,  we  may  sum  up  the  nature  of  Mark's 
Gospel  in  some  sentences  taken  from  J.  Weiss.  '  The 
significance  of  the  oldest  Gospel  for  the  Church's  history 


INTRODUCTION  49 

lies  before  all  things  in  this,  that  it  has  fashioned  once  for 
all,  with  vivid  touches  serving  as  a  model  for  all  who 
come  after,  a  picture  of  Jesus  on  earth  which  has  impressed 
itself  indissolubly  on  the  imagination  of  the  community. 
In  it  one  can  recognize  what  significance  for  the  Christian 
Mission  the  '  historical '  Jesus  possessed.  Mission  preach- 
ing, as  we  have  seen,  could  not  dispense  with  a  certain 
amount  of  information  touching  the  life  of  Jesus,  ,  .  .  The 
Gospel  of  Mark,  then,  teaches  us  that  the  need  of  a  living, 
concrete  picture  was  far  greater  than  has  generally  been 
supposed.  Fresh  converts  desired  a  fuller  knowledge 
touching  Jesus,  of  whom  they  were  told  that  he  is  the  Son 
of  God  :  the  communities  needed  for  worship  and  indivi- 
dual piety  a  living  presentation  of  him  who  had  died  for 
their  sakes.  Besides  there  was,  no  doubt,  already  arising 
a  certain  historical  interest  :  in  particular,  as  the  eye- 
witnesses of  Jesus'  life  were  dying  out,  the  necessity  be- 
came clear  of  maintaining  what  they  had  given  as  tradi- 
tion .  .  ,  The  oldest  Gospel  (Mark)  .  .  .,  therefore,  is  only 
to  be  understood  and  rightly  estimated,  if  it  is  read  on  the 
one  hand  as  expressing  the  conceptions  and  convictions 
of  the  Evangelist,  and  on  the  other  as  a  collection  of  older 
traditions,  which  in  part  grew  out  of  quite  other  concep- 
tions'  {Das  UrcJn-istentiim^  p.  544). 

When  this  needful  distinction  is  made,  it  does  but  add 
to  the  value  of  certain  of  our  Mark's  characteristic  fea- 
tures. Thus  '  the  less  it  is  the  case  that  the  Evangelist 
(himself)  sets  out  to  strengthen  the  influence  of  the  person 
of  Jesus  upon  the  souls  of  his  readers  by  the  picture  of  an 
ethical  ideal,  the  more  important  is  it  that  the  material  he 
furnishes  contains  manifold  features  which  could  not  but 
work  immediately  upon  the  feelings  of  Christians  of  that 
age.  .  .  .  The  grace  of  Christ,  of  which  Paul  speaks,  his 
willingness  to  forgive  the  penitent  (ii.  5),  is  presented  to 
the  imagination  by  word  and  deed  in  an  impressive  fashion. 
. .  .  Above  all  is  Jesus,  who  was  himself  hated  and  mocked, 
and  who  has  drained  the  bitter  cup  of  suffering,  a  hearten- 

E 


50  ST.  MARK 

ing  and  ronsoling  Leader  for  those  whose  lot  any  day  might 
be  trial  and  martyrdom.  In  this  direction  lies  the  edifying 
power  of  the  '  Passion-story.' 

'  Such,  in  some  of  its  chief  traits,  is  the  meaning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  viewed  not  as  an  historical  source /or  us, 
but  as  a  missionary-writing  or  lesson-book  for  the  mission- 
communities.'  None  the  less  Mark  did  in  effect  turn  '  the 
Gospel '  largely  into  a  Biography. 

15.    The  Historic  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel. 

And  so  we  approach  the  final  and  most  vital  question 
touching  our  Gospel,  its  '  historicity.'  The  question  itself 
is  largely  a  modern  one.  For  the  interest  behind  it,  the 
passion  to  know  how  all  actually  happened—'  the  historic 
spirit '—  is  a  comparatively  new  thing  among  men.  It  is  one 
connected  with  the  modern  sense  of  the  peculiar  worth  and 
even  sanctity,  especially  in  the  religious  sphere,  of  facts  as 
such — what  has  been  wrought  in  and  into  the  warp  and 
woof  of  reality,  as  a  connected  and  stable  order  such  as 
science  knows  and  deals  with.  We  want,  then,  to  see  the 
Life  and  Person  of  Jesus  as  far  as  possible  in  such  a  hght, 
that  of  historic  '  realism,'  in  order  to  grasp  their  full 
meaning  more  surely  and  fruitfully  for  our  life  in  a  world 
of  hard  realities,  of  strenuous  conflict  with  the  actual  forces 
at  work  in  human  nature,  individually  and  socially. 

The  first  Christians,  standing  as  they  did  in  such  direct 
relation  with  '  the  fact  of  Christ '  through  eye-witnesses  or 
those  who  had  caught  their  message  first-hand  from  such, 
were  content  to  proclaim  the  Gospel  message  touching 
God  and  man  that  had  reached  them  in  and  through 
Jesus  the  Christ,  without  asking  themselves  how  far  the 
picture  of  Christ's  personality  and  career  lying  at  the  heart 
of  their  new  experience  was  '  historical,'  i.  e.  an  exact  re- 
flexion of  the  facts  of  his  life  in  its  real  order  of  develop- 
ment. They  f  It  secure  of  the  Jesus  of  history  as  lying 
behind  what  they  knew  of  the  Christ  of  faith  and  religious 


INTRODUCTION  51 

experience  ;  but  their  very  assurance  of  the  essential  reality 
of  Jesus'  ministry  of  grace  and  power,  as  it  had  impressed 
the  Apostolic  witnesses,  made  them  indifferent  to  most  of 
its  concrete  details,  and  especially  of  the  historical  order 
and  relations  in  which  it  had  unfolded  itself. 

To  us  moderns,  however,  the  very  religious  value  of  the 
Gospel  story  is  bound  up  with  its  historical  character,  as 
something  once  really  enacted  in  the  life  and  deeds  of 
Jesus  the  Christ.  Did  he  actually  stand,  in  his  own  con- 
sciousness and  in  that  of  those  who  knew  him  best,  in 
unique  relations  to  God  and  to  men  and  women  about 
him  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  turns  largely  upon 
(i)  the  verisimilitude  of  the  historical  setting  in  which 
his  ministry  is  described  as  fulfilled,  and  of  his  relations 
with  it ;  and  (2)  the  self-consistency  and  fitness  of  the 
development  of  Jesus'  ministry,  and  of  what  can  be 
gathered  of  his  inner  attitude  and  thought  touching  his 
vocation  as  the  Messiah,  through  whom  the  Kingdom  of 
God  was  to  be  realized  in  Israel  and  among  men  at  large. 
Positive  results  on  these  closely  related  aspects  of  the 
picture  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  would  go  far  to  verify  the 
historicity  of  the  personality  and  ministry  there  reflected  ; 
they  would  also  give  a  fulness  of  insight  into  his  intrinsic 
mind  and  spirit,  and  so  into  the  authentic  meaning  of  his 
Gospel — as  distinct  from  readings  of  it  varying  with  the 
reader's  own  idiosyncrasies — such  as  could  not  otherwise 
be  attained. 

When,  however,  we  turn  to  our  Gospels  for  answers  to 
these  questions,  we  are  confronted  by  their  differences  and 
even  discrepancies  in  certain  respects.  This  is  so,  not  only 
as  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics,  but  also 
as  between  these  latter  individually.  In  which  of  them 
are  the  requirements  of  an  historical  portraiture  of  Jesus, 
in  and  through  an  intelligibly  developing  ministry,  most 
fully  met  ?  It  is  generally  agreed  to-day,  first,  that  the 
palm  must  here  be  given  to  Mark's  Gospel  ;  and  next,  that 
what  of  development  in  Jesus'  ministry,  in  correspondence 


52  ST.  MARK 

with  its  environment,  is  discernible  in  the  other  two 
Synoptics  is  due  largely  to  use  of  this  Gospel  as  the  frame- 
work into  which  their  other  material  is  fitted.  Moreover, 
neither  of  the  other  two  Evangelists  has  really  appro- 
priated all  that  our  Mark  contains  in  the  way  of  evidence 
touching  Jesus'  own  inner  history.  Indeed  some  of  it  has 
not  been  fully  assimilated  (as  we  saw  in  §  14)  by  Mark 
himself :  and  this  fact  surely  points  back,  first,  to  his  great 
fidelity  to  the  tradition  which  he  follows  (Peter's  in  the 
main),  and  then  to  the  historicity  of  its  psychological  data, 
the  latent  meaning  of  which  has  only  gradually  been 
coming  to  light  in  these  latter  days. 

But  before  dwelling  further  on  this  most  important 
aspect  of  the  picture  of  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel,  it  maybe 
well  to  deal  with  the  other  and  more  obvious  aspect  of 
historicity,  viz.  that  of  backgroimd  or  setii7ig.  This  is 
twofold  :  first,  the  more  external,  whether  topographical  or 
circumstantial :  and  second,  the  human  environment  of 
religious  parties  and  types,  their  habits  and  modes  of 
thought,  as  these  existed  in  the  Judaism  amid  which  Jesus 
moved  and  exercised  his  ministry.  On  the  former  head 
there  is  almost  universal  agreement  as  to  Mark's  fidelity 
(in  its  original  text)  to  Palestinian  conditions.  On  the 
latter,  while  there  is  again  agreement  as  to  the  superiority 
of  Mark  to  the  other  Gospels,  there  is  still  some  tendency, 
among  Jewish  scliolars  in  particular,  to  question  the 
representation  of  Jewish  matters  where  those  opposed  to 
Jesus  were  concerned,  particularly  the  Pharisees.  But  such 
criticism  by  modern  Jewish  scholars,  valuable  as  it  often  is 
in  details,  takes  it  for  granted  that  the  Pharisaism  and 
Rabbinic  teaching  of  Jesus'  day  were  the  same,  both  in 
actual  usages  and  in  the  relative  value  attached  to  the 
moral  and  ritual  aspects  of  religious  duty  (as  rooted  in  the 
Mosaic  Law),  as  we  find  in  the  Mishnah  and  the  Talmud  ; 
and  that  where  the  Gospels  give  another  impression  they 
must  be  discounted  as  being  biassed  witnesses.  This  is 
far  from  true  to  analogy,  which  favours  the  possibility  of 


INTRODUCTION  53 

large  changes  of  spirit  in  the  average  attitude  of  any 
religious  tradition  ;  and  it  means  a  setting  aside  of  positive 
contemporary  evidence  in  favour  of  inferences  from  later 
evidence,  before  the  untrustworthiness  of  the  former  for  its 
own  day  has  been  estabhshed.  That  exaggeration  of  Jesus' 
own  anti-Pharisaic  criticism  gradually  grew  up,  partly  in 
the  transmission  of  the  Christian  oral  tradition,  both  before 
and  after  it  assumed  written  form  in  our  Gospels,  and  still 
more  in  the  later  traditional  Christian  reading  (including 
actual  glosses  in  the  text)  of  what  is  there  written,  is  fairly 
proven.  But  this  does  not  justify  suspicion  of  what  seems 
plainly  part  of  Jesus'  argument  face  to  face  with  the 
Pharisees  of  his  own  day,  simply  on  the  score  that  it 
implies  Pharisaic  developments,  whether  of  practice  or 
theory,  not  witnessed  to  by  a  reformed  Pharisaism,  after 
the  calamities  of  Judaism  in  A.  D.  70  and  135. 

Admitting,  however,  that  the  conflict  between  Pharisaic 
Judaism  and  the  early  Church  has  left  its  traces  on  the 
form  in  which  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  ministry  appears  in 
our  Gospels,  it  can  yet  hardly  be  doubted  that  there  was 
a  radical  difference  between  the  religious  attitude  and 
spirit  of  Pharisaism,  on  the  one  side,  and  of  Jesus  himself, 
the  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  on  the  other  ;  and  that  this  was 
the  real  issue  which  worked  itself  out  in  history  as  the 
Cross  of  Christ,  however  much  the  Sadducaic  priesthood 
at  Jerusalem  may  have  been  immediately  responsible  for 
its  actual  form.  For  to  the  Pharisees  outward  or  cere- 
monial fidelity  to  legal  precepts  was  determinative  of  true 
religion :  to  Jesus  it  was  so  subordinate  to  the  spirit  or 
inward  intention  of  the  Law  as  a  whole,  that,  on  occasion, 
true  obedience  to  this  might  involve  formal  breach  of  this 
or  that  outward  rule,  not  only  of  the  '  tradition  of  the 
Elders,'  but  of  the  written  Law  itself. 

To  literalistic  Legalism  or  Rabbinic  Pharisaism,  whether 
earlier  or  later,  Christians  were,  to  use  the  striking  language 
of  Paul,  the  great  ex-Pharisee,  in  principle  '  crucified  by 
the    body   of   Christ.'      They   shared   the    'newness'   of 


54  ST.   MARK 

religious  life  which  he  embodied,  and  which  rose  again 
with  him,  after  crucifixion  in  the  outer  or  external  sphere, 
where  the  old  order  of  religion  so  largely  moved  and  had 
its  being.  To-day,  moreover,  the  prophetic  conception  of 
the  Law,  which  Jesus  represented  and  carried  to  a  fulfil- 
ment of  which  the  prophets  had  only  dreamt  in  imagina- 
tive anticipation,  has  received  fresh  justification  within 
modem  Judaism  itself,  in  the  thought  and  writings,  and  in 
a  measure  even  in  the  less  legal  forms  of  piety,  of  liberal 
Jewish  scholars  and  synagogues  here  and  there,  especially 
in  English-speaking  lands.  Such  Jewish  scholars  acknow- 
ledge their  debt  to  the  greatest  prophet  of  their  race,  as 
many  of  them  esteem  Jesus.  And  Christian  scholars,  on 
their  part,  owe  a  deep  debt  to  them  for  removing  from 
Christian  eyes  the  scales  of  ignorance  and  prejudice  which 
have  obscured  their  reading  of  the  New  Testament — written, 
as  it  was,  for  the  most  part  by  men  of  Jewish  blood  and 
Jewish  thought — and  notleast  of  the  Gospels  which  enshrine 
the  historic  image  of  Jesus.  For  those  Christian  Jews  Jesus 
was  the  revelation  of  the  invisible  God  in  a  human  per- 
sonality, surely  the  most  adequate  form  of  Divine  revelation, 
as  the  Prophets  taught  in  their  picture  of  the  Messiah  who 
was  to  visit  Israel  in  due  season.  It  is,  then,  chiefly  in  their 
rejection  of  the  prophetic  idea  of  a  Messianic  Mediator  of 
God  to  men,  both  in  words  and  in  acts  (particularly  the 
Cross),  that  liberal  Jews  to-day  dissociate  themselves  from 
their  Christian  brethren  of  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham. 
Otherwise  there  has  been  a  striking  approximation  from 
both  sides  between  liberal  Jews  and  Christians,  not  only 
in  the  realm  of  scholarship  but  also  in  that  of  spiritual 
religion,  where  *  that  which  proceedeth  out  of  the  heart '  is 
the  thing  which  matters  before  God,  and  wherein  for  both 
types  of  piety  true  '  purity  '  consists. 

This  said,  we  return  to  the  picture  of  Jesus  the  Christ  as 
it  appears  in  the  very  texture  of  the  Marcan  story  taken 
as  a  whole,  and  apart  from  any  touches  which  can  reason- 


INTRODUCTION  55 

ably  be  traced  to  the  Evangelist's  own  faith  (§  14)  or  to 
changes  arising  unconsciously  in  the  course  of  oral  tradi- 
tion (e.  g.  the  exact  terms  in  which  demoniacs  addressed 
Jesus  as  one  felt  to  wield  a  potent  spiritual  influence  in  the 
name  of  God),  Matthew  Arnold  well  describes  the  Jesus 
of  the  Gospels  as  frequently  speaking  above  the  heads 
of  his  reporters.  And  what  is  true  of  the  original  disciples 
is  true  also  of  the  Evangelists  themselves.  Accordingly, 
in  our  quest  for  '  the  mind  of  the  Master '  himself— for  the 
way  in  which  Jesus  thought  of  his  own  career  as  it  unfolded 
stage  by  stage  before  his  soul,  while  he  '  learned  obedience  ' 
as  a  son  by  the  strange  experiences  through  which  the 
Father  led  him  on  (cf.  Heb.  v.  7  f.)— we  must  sometimes 
look  behind  even  Mark's  conception  of  the  course  of 
Jesus'  ministry  and  his  own  attitude  to  it.  Nay  more,  we 
must  be  prepared  to  look  at  certain  points  behind  even 
Mark's  form  of  the  common  apostolic  tradition,  usually 
the  most  primitive  of  all.  For  although  the  Marcan 
tradition  itself  affords  clear  hints  of  a  development  in 
Jesus'  ministry,  yet  it  tends,  quite  naturally,  to  present  this 
too  much  in  the  light  of  its  final  outcome,  and  also  to  assume 
that  the  latter  was  from  the  first  clearly  present  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  prime  actor  himself,  as  if  there  were 
no  real  development  in  Jesus'  own  thoughts  as  to  his 
mission  and  the  manner  in  which  the  Kingdom  was  to 
come  through  his  agency. 

But  when  we  try  to  read  between  the  lines  of  the 
earliest  Apostolic  tradition,  by  the  aid  of  certain  of  Jesus' 
sayings  and  significant  acts  viewed  in  their  own  light, 
we  begin  to  discern  an  inward  and  gradual  change  in 
the  perspective  a?id  forecast  of  Jesus'  ministry,  as  it 
presented  itself  to  his  human  consciousness  in  the  light 
of  experiences  of  unreadiness  on  the  part  both  of  leaders 
and  people — things  clearly  not  expected  by  him,  but 
moving  him  to  surprise,  disappointment,  or  indignation. 
This  is  particularly  the  case  when  we  consider  all  that 
bears  upon  what  has  been  called  his  '  Messianic  Secret,' 


56  ST.    MARK 

the  way  in  which  he  inwardly  viewed  his  own  vocation  in 
relation  to  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  of  God, 
which  from  the  first  he  proclaimed  as  near  at  hand.  This 
coming  Kingdom  was  the  substance  of  '  the  Gospel 'or 
gracious  Message  from  God  with  which  he  was  entrusted, 
in  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  picture  in  the  second  part 
of  the  Book  of  Isaiah.  From  the  first,  then,  he  was 
conscious  of  his  Divine  vocation  to  follow  up  the  Baptist's 
ministry  of  'making  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord,'  the  God 
of  Israel,  who  was  to  come  and  reign  manifestly  among 
a  people  made  'willing  in  the  day  of  His  power' — the 
essential  meaning  of  '  the  Kingdom '  or  Reign  '  of  God '  ; 
and  for  him  this  vocation  was  rooted  in  his  special  filial 
relation  to  God,  as  before  and  above  all  his  Father.  His 
sonship  ^  to  God,  we  repeat,  was  the  real  basis  of  all  else. 
But  the  form  of  ministry  through  which  he  expected  to 
bring  in  the  Kingdom  among  God's  people  was  not  one 
and  the  same  throughout ;  it  was  profoundly  coloured, 
and  modified  in  perspective  and  in  emphasis  on  the 
various  aspects  and  elements  in  the  filial  life,  by  the 
actual  course  of  his  experiences  in  preaching  the  Kingdom. 
To  begin  with,  he  felt  and  acted  simply  as  the  anointed 
Prophet  of  his  Father's  will  for  Israel,  and  of  the  type  of 
religion,  individually  and  socially,  which  this  involved. 
But  before  very  long  the  religious  leaders,  the  Pharisees 
and  their  Scribes,  proved  hostile,  and  the  people  at  large 
insensitive,  to  that  religious  ideal— the  latter  because  they 
found  it  too  personal  in  its  demands  and  in  the  method 
by  which  (rather  than  by  a  national  revolt  from  Roman 
overlordship)  its  '  redemption  '  was  to  be  wrought.  Then 
first,  as  it  seems,  did  he  begin  to  realize  the  other  aspect 
of  the  Isaianic  picture  of  '  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,'  viz. 


'  Whether  the  actual  phrasing  of  the  Voice  at  his  Baptism 
be  strictly  historical,  or  rather  the  way  in  which  his  experience 
at  that  crisis  came  to  be  reported  in  tradition  (compare  the 
Voice  at  the  Transfiguration,  ix.  7),  is  a  secondary  matter. 


INTRODUCTION  57 

that  only  through  vicarious  sufferi7ig,  for  the  sake  of  a 
stiff-necked  and  blind  people,  could  its  salvation  be 
achieved,  as  applicable  to  his  own  ministry.  Thus  his 
prophetic  ministry  took  on  a  deeper  and  more  vicarious 
meaning  :  the  service  of  the  Servant  became  a  '  minister- 
ing '  even  unto  the  point  of  'giving  his  life  as  a  means 
of  deliverance  (ransom)  for  many '  (Mark  x.  45,  on  the 
lines  of  Isa.  liii,  esp.  8,  10-12) ;  and  the  Prophet's  function 
expanded  so  as  to  include  also  the  Priest's,  in  the  fully 
personal  sense  of  one  who  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself 
changes  the  attitude  of  the  sinful  and  brings  them  into 
moral  fellowship  with  God, 

In  both  of  these  stages,  however,  the  older  and  Davidic 
aspect  of  God's  Anointed  {Messiah),  viz.  as  King,  remains 
only  in  the  background  of  Jesus'  thought,  partly  because 
of  its  suggestions  of  power  rather  than  service,  partly  also 
because  the  current  conception  of  Messiahship  had  too 
external  and  nationalist  a  sense.  Accordingly,  it  was  not 
until  the  final  stage  of  his  conflict  with  the  national 
religious  authorities  — now  in  the  persons  of  the  high- 
priestly  custodians  of  the  central  worship  of  the  Temple — 
that  Jesus  overtly  claimed  Messianic  Kingship,  but  still 
on  its  purely  spiritual  side,  that  of  authority  for  religious 
reformation.  This  claim  he  made  virtually  by  entering 
the  Holy  City  in  a  manner  plainly  recalling  the  type  of 
kingship  in  Zech.  ix.  9  :  '  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of 
Zion  ....  Behold,  thy  king  cometh  unto  thee  :  he  is  just, 
and  having  salvation ;  lowly,  and  riding  upon  an  ass. 
And  I  will  cut  off  the  chariot  (and  other  weapons  of 
war) .  .  . :  and  he  shall  speak  peace  unto  the  nations.'  He 
made  it  more  explicitly  in  act,  by  cleansing  the  Temple, 
and  then  defending  the  action,  when  challenged,  by 
comparing  his  authority  to  the  purely  spiritual  prophetic 
authority  of  John  the  Baptist  ;  and  a  little  later  he  im- 
plicitly repeated  the  claim  to  be  '  the  Christ,'  but  in  such 
a  sense  as  to  be  David's  spiritual  Lord. 

The    thread    of   continuiiy  riciwing   through    nil  this 


S8  ST.  MARK 

development  \n  outlook  and  emphasis  is  to  be  found,  on  its 
inner  and  essential  side,  in  Jesus'  filial  consciousness 
from  first  to  last,  and  on  its  more  formal  side  in  the 
chapters  of  Isaiah  dealing  with  the  Servant  of  the  Lord. 
It  was  here,  as  we  see  from  his  sermon  at  Nazareth 
(Lukeiv),  that  he  recognized  the  type  of  his  own  vocation. 
'  We  may  say,  perhaps,'  writes  Dr.  Sanday,^  '  that  as  our 
Lord's  consciousness  of  Sonship  received  its  seal  in  the 
vision  which  accompanied  His  Baptism ' — and  conditioned 
his  taking  up  the  role  of  the  Anointed  Servant  described 
in  Isa.  Ixi.  i  ff. — '  so  also  His  consciousness  of  a  call  to 
assume  the  character  of  the  Suffering  Servant  was  con- 
firmed by  another  vision,  the  vision  that  is  known  as  the 
Transfiguration,  when  Moses  and  Elijah  "appeared  in 
glory  and  spake  of  his  decease  which  he  was  about  to 
accomplish  at  Jerusalem."  '  Possibly  the  wording  of  this 
description  in  Luke  ix.  31 — which  gives  us  a  true  hint, 
enabling  us  to  see  more  into  Jesus'  own  mind  on  this 
occasion  than  does  the  tradition  as  known  to  Mark— is 
so  far  coloured  by  the  after-event  that  it  makes  the  issue 
of  Jesus'  going  up  to  Jerusalem  more  certain  to  his  mind 
than  may  then  have  been  the  case,  if  we  may  judge  by 
certain  actions  and  words  of  his  when  even  nearer  the 
supreme  crisis.  Yet  the  probability  of  the  issue  being 
death  was  no  doubt  faced  by  Jesus  at  this  stage.  And 
the  like  applies  to  the  wording  of  all  the  references 
to  the  Passion  put  into  his  lips  by  the  Synoptics  during 
the  journey  towards  the  capital.  But  that  by  this  time 
he  was  thinking  of  his  ministry  essentially  in  terms  of 
the  suffering  Servant,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe. 

What  this  means  may  be  set  forth  in  some  further 
words  of  Dr.  Sanday  {op.  cit.  87  fF.)  touching  'that 
wonderful  group  of  prophecies  relating  to  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah.' 


^  '  The   Meaning  of  the  Atonement,'  in  Divine  Overruling, 
p.  86, 


INTRODUCTION  59 

'  Some  difficulty  has  been  caused  by  the  apparent  changes  in 
the  subject  of  the  picture  that  is  drawn  for  us.  At  one  moment 
it  is  clearly  and  expressly  Israel  as  a  nation  (Isa.  xli.  8  f.  ; 
xliv.  I  f.,  21  ;  xlv.  4  ;  xlviii.  2o)  ;  at  another,  it  is  not  the  nation 
as  a  whole,  but,  as  it  would  seem,  the  faithful  few,  the  godly 
kernel  of  the  nation  as  contrasted  with  the  "blind  and  deaf" 
who  make  up  the  main  body  (xlii.  i8  f.)  ;  at  a  third,  we  are 
led  to  think  rather  of  an  individual  leader  or  prophet  (so  per- 
haps especially  in  xlii.  1-3  and  liii).  Really  the  Servant  is  an 
ideal  figure,  which  is  capable  of  expansion  or  contraction,  ac- 
cording to  the  particular  object  which  the  writer  has  specially 
before  his  mind.  Sometimes  he  is  thinking  of  an  individual 
whose  mission  it  is  to  convert  or  reconvert  his  own  people  ; 
sometimes  of  a  group  who  act  together  and  suffer  together  in 
the  same  cause  ;  and  sometimes  he  generalizes  yet  more  boldly 
and  thinks  of  the  whole  nation  in  its  ideal  aspect  as  a  mis- 
sionary nation,  which  stands  out  as  a  witness  for  God  among 
the  peoples  of  the  earth,  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles.  In 
this  character  it  attains  to  the  height  of  its  mission  especially 
through  its  sufferings.  .  . .' 

'  The  writer  certainly  has  this  larger  view  before  his  mind. 
And  yet,  in  a  case  like  this,  the  concrete  precedes  the  abstract. 
I  have  little  doubt  that  the  prophet's  thought  starts  from  what 
he  had  seen  on  the  smaller  scale  and  with  his  own  eyes.  This, 
I  think,  comes  out  especially  in  the  first  verses  of  ch.  xlii  and 
in  ch.  liii.  The  traits  of  character  in  these  passages  are  so  dis- 
tinct that  they  read  like  the  biography  of  an  individual. . .  .The 
Servant  will  "not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor  cause  his  voice  to  be 
heard  in  the  street."  ''  He  was  despised  and  rejected  of  men  ; 
a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief,"  "  He  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniqui- 
ties ;  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him  ;  and  with 
his  stripes  we  are  healed."  However  much  we  may  .  .  .  think  of 
the  nation  acting  as  a  scapegoat  for  other  nations,  that  could 
be  only  by  an  effort  of  thought,  starting  from  more  immediate 
observation  and  experience.  I  imagine  that  the  prophet  must 
have  seen  some  one  close  at  hand  whose  life  history  could  be 
described  in  these  terms.  He  ends  by  sacrificing  life  itself, 
and  there  would  seem  to  have  been  special  circumstances  in 


6o  ST.   MARK 

his  death.  In  some  conspicuous  way  it  was  clear  that  he  was  dying 
for  others,  and  he  died  unresisting  and  uncomplaining.  At  the 
same  time  he  was  mixed  up  with  common  malefactors,  and 
made  his  grave  among  them.  Yet  he  did  not  die  in  vain.  He 
left  some  converts  behind  him,  and  a  prospect  of  more.  "  He 
shall  see  his  seed  " — his  spiritual  children  :  "  he  shall  prolong 
his  days  " — through  the  spiritual  posterity  ;  "  and  the  pleasure 
of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand '' — he  will  feel  that  he  is 
an  instrument  for  carrying  out  God's  purposes.  In  that  he  has 
his  reward  :  he  sees  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  is  satisfied  .... 
I  must  needs  think  that  in  this  picture  a  corner  is  lifted  of  the 
curtain  of  darkness  which  hangs  over  the  Babylonian  Cap- 
tivity. .  .  .  The  life-story  of  an  individual  might  well  be  a  kind 
of  epitome  of  the  history  of  nations.' 

One  can  hardly  read  this  sympathetic  summary  of  the 
general  effect  of  the  most  arresting  portion  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy  without  feeling  morally  sure  that  this  was 
at  least  the  light  in  which  it  presented  itself  to  the  soul  of 
Jesus,  particularly  as  the  parallel  between  it  and  his  own 
experiences  as  God's  servant,  'ministering'  the  Gospel 
to  Israel,  became  closer  and  closer.  To  judge  from  the 
prevalent  accent  of  gladness  and  hope,  in  his  proclamation 
of  the  Evangel  of  the  coming  Kingdom,  which  marks  the 
opening  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  his  thoughts  rested  for 
a  while  only  on  the  brighter  side  of  the  picture.  He  might 
naturally  assume  that  in  theyfwa/ fulfilment  of  its  message, 
as  distinct  from  its  original  but  partial  one — ere  the  excep- 
tionally Divine  conditions  of  the  'Messianic'  age  were 
present— the  darker  traits  would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  be 
lacking.  For  the  Messianic  era  was  to  differ  from  all 
previous  ones  in  the  very  fact  that  Israel  should  no  longer 
be  '  blind  and  deaf  to  God's  call,  but  'willing  in  the  day 
of  His  power.'  But  when  it  was  forced  on  Jesus  by  bitter 
experience,  of  which  the  parable  of  the  Sower  is  the  first 
clear  hint  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  that  God's  people  was 
still  much  as  the  prophets  had  found  it ;  that  only  a 
minority,  a  'remnant,'  was    spiritually  prepared   for  the 


INTRODUCTION  6i 

true  Reign  of  God  among  them  ;  it  must  have  come  home 
to  him  that  for  this  '  httle  flock,'  and  for  its  anointed 
Head,  the  darker  side  of  the  picture  still  held  good.  Only 
so  could  he  and  '  the  remnant ' — '  the  leaven  '  or  '  the  salt ' 
of  Israel,  as  he  phrased  it— fulfil  their  appointed  part  as 
the  saving  Servant  of  the  Lord  in  the  bringing  in  of  His 
Kingdom.  In  them  also  the  words  italicized  in  the  above 
quotation  were  destined  to  be  fulfilled. 

Such  a  genesis  of  Jesus'  outlook  on  his  Mission,  until  it 
resolved  itself  into  the  way  of  the  Cross,  is  completely  in 
keeping  with  the  analogy  of  the  part  played  by  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  moulding  of  his  thoughts  ;  and  as  such  is 
most  probable.  Particularly  is  this  so,  if  we  accept 
Dr.  Sanday's  exposition  of  the  relation  of  the  individual 
and  the  collective  aspects  of  the  title  and  fortunes  of  '  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah.'  But  in  any  case  Jesus  might  well 
come  in  this  way  to  realize  the  full  spirit  of  the  original 
situation.  Thus  he  would  perceive  that  it  was  essentially 
true  to  the  Messiah's  vocation,  as  he  viewed  the  office,  to 
take  the  lead  as  the  representative  Israelite  in  this  path 
also,  as  one  through  which  alone  redemption  and  forgive- 
ness of  sins  could  be  achieved  for  Israel  at  large.  And 
not  only  for  Israel,  but  also  through  Israel  for  all  men 
everj'where  (see  Isa.  xlix.  6  fif),  in  keeping  with  the  con- 
ception in  Zech.  ix.  Qf  of  the  'lowly'  King  of  Zion,  who 
should  also  '  speak  peace  unto  the  nations.' 

In  such  an  individualizing  or  summing  up  of  Israel's 
national  vocation  as  Servant  of  the  Lord,  in  the  personal 
Messiah,  we  have  a  close  parallel  to  Jesus'  conception  and 
use  of  another  idea  most  characteristic  of  his  thought,  viz. 
the  Son  of  man.  This  too,  in  its  original  context  in  Dan. 
vii.  13,  had  been  a  symbol  for  the  true  Israel,  but  one 
which  had  in  current  Jewish  thought  already  acquired  an 
individual  reference  to  the  coming  Messiah,  as  conceived 
by  the  '  Apocalyptic '  mode  of  thought,  which  succeeded 
to  the  Prophetic  and  continued  its  traditions  under  another 
form,  as  purely  symbolic  in  its  imagery  and  more  specula- 


62  ST.  MARK 

tive  in  its  theology.  How  far  Jesus  himself  was  familiar 
with  Apocalyptic,  beyond  the  degree  to  which  it  had 
entered  into  general  popular  religion  in  Galilee,  is  a  doubt- 
ful question.  But  at  least  it  is  most  consonant  both  with 
his  habit  of  modifying  all  he  adopted  from  current  usage 
and  with  his  actual  use  of '  the  Son  of  Man  '  in  our  Gospels, 
to  regard  Jesus  as  having  applied  the  phrase  to  himself  in 
a  sense  diverging  a  good  deal  from  the  Apocalyptic  one, 
in  the  direction  of  the  other  and  more  usual  sense  which 
it  has  in  the  Old  Testament,  notably  in  Ps.  viii.  4  AT.  (of. 
Heb.  ii.  5  ff.).  There  it  denotes  '  man '  generically,  as 
distinct  from  God,  on  the  one  hand,  but  equally  from  all 
the  sub-human  creation  on  the  other.  It  is  as  man  in  this 
sense,  that  of  the  Divine  ideal  in  the  creation  of  man, 
that  Jesus  thinks  of  himself  as  the  representative  '  Son  of 
Man,'  the  typical  embodiment  of  the  idea  lying  behind 
the  choice  in  Daniel  of  the  phrase  for  the  symbol  of  Israel, 
as  itself  representing  humanity  after  God's  purpose  more 
faithfully  than  any  of  '  the  nations.'  This  double  line  of 
association  attaching  to  the  phrase  *  the  Son  of  Man ' — 
which  coalesced  in  Jesus'  mind  ever  more  and  more 
closely  in  idea  with  '  the  Servant  of  Jehovah ' — best  ex- 
plains how  Jesus  used  it  throughout  his  ministry  as  a 
whole.  At  first  he  uses  it  to  describe  his  Messianic  func- 
tion in  the  aspect  of  solida?-ity  linth  mankind,  as  its  repre- 
sentative alike  in  his  creaturely  lot  and  in  his  spiritual 
dignity  (Ps.  viii.  4  f. ;  so  Mark  ii.  10,  with  Matt.  ix.  8  ;  ii. 
27  f. ;  X.  45),  as  clothed,  though  in  finite,  dependent  form 
(cf.  Luke  ix.  58,  xxii.  48),  with  Divine  authority  on  earth. 
Then,  later  on,  after  the  disciples'  confession  near  Caesarea 
Philippi  that  he,  'the  Son  of  man'  (see  Matt.  xvi.  13  and 
15),  for  all  his  humble  estate,  was  yet  the  Lord's  Anointed, 
the  Messiah,  he  begins  to  add  to  it  the  further  sense  of 
oixe  who  shall  yet  manifestly,  in  outward  estate  as  well  as 
inwardly  and  spiritually  (cf.  x.  45),  be  invested  with  the 
quasi-Divine  prerogatives  of  Messianic  authority  (Mark 
viii.  38,  xiv.  62).     The  transition  comes  half-way  through 


INTRODUCTION  63 

the  Gospel  (ch.  viii),  and  first  appears  formally  in  viii.  38, 
ix.  9,  12,  in  the  latter  of  which  passages  the  Isaianic  ele- 
ment in  the  fresh  usage  is  most  clear,  and  is  present  per- 
haps even  in  Jesus'  thought  as  to  '  the  rising  from  the 
dead'  (ix.  gi.,  with  Is.  liii.  10 ff.).  Thereafter  we  have  a 
series  of  fresh  allusions  to  the  future  of '  the  Son  of  man  ' 
in  terms  of  the  circle  of  ideas  in  Is.  liii.  (ix.  31,  x.  33,  xiv. 
21,41),  supplemented  in  xiv.  62  (cf  xiii.  26)  by  the  imagery 
of  Dan.  vii.  13.  To  sum  up  in  a  word,  Jesus'  own  con- 
ceptio7i  of  his  vocation  took  shape  in  a  peculiar  and  utterly 
original  fusion  of  the  more  spiritual  aspects  of  the  ideas 
of  'the  Servant  of  the  Lord'  in  Is.  xlii  and  'the  Son  of 
man '  in  Dan,  vii.  13,  read  in  the  spirit  of  Ps.  viii.  4  f. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  the  Jesus  of  the  funda- 
mental Marcan  narrative  conceived  his  ministry  through- 
out in  terms  of  the  Isaianic  Messianic  Kingdom,  in  the 
spiritual    sense   of  God's   perfect    Reign   in    Israel,   and 
through  Israel  over  mankind  at  large ;  and  that  he  preached 
the  advent  of  this  as  '  the  Gospel '  of  God.     As  such,  the 
Kingdom — and  so  his  own  Messiahship — was  both  present 
and  future  :  present  in  germ  in  himself  and  in  those  who 
accepted  the  principles  of  the  Kingdom  of  God's  righteous 
Fatherliness  ;  future  as  regards  its  '  coming '  in  realized 
power  and  actual  control  of  all  human  life.     Israel  itself 
was  called  to  become  '  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,'  as  de- 
picted in  certain  sections  of  Isaiah  xl.  fif.,  through  genuine 
repentance  or  '  turning  '  wholeheartedly  to  God  as  revealed 
in  and  through  Jesus  himself,  God's  Messiah,  His  personal 
Son,  and  the  representative   embodiment  of  the  Divine 
will  for  man  and  in  man,  '  the  Son  of  man,'  who  was  the 
Lord's  '  Servant '  in  the  more  special  or  individual  sense 
of  Acts  iii.  26,  iv.  27.     Had  the  nation  as  a  whole  re- 
sponded to  this  'Gospel'  as  Jesus   at   first  anticipated, 
both  it  and  he,  '  the  Son  of  man,'  would  have  realized 
their  Divine  vocations  at  first  intention.     The  Kingdom 
would  have  come  without  the  need  of  vicarious  suffering  to 
overcome  man's  sinful  reluctance,  and  so  achieve  salvation 


64  ST.   MARK 

by  '  redemptive '  Love,  that  is,  Grace  not  only  as  Divine 
gift,  but  as  costly  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  God  and  His 
own :  the  way  of  the  Cross  would  have  been  spared  both 
Jesus  and  his  true  followers — 'the  holy  remnant,'  at  once 
the  nucleus  of  the  Messianic  Israel  and  the  body  of  Mes- 
siah, as  its  personal  Head. 

At  some  moment,  then,  in  Jesus'  ministry  which  we 
cannot  date  exactly,  though  it  doubtless  lay  a  good  way 
further  back  than  the  point  when  it  came  out  practically 
in  a  new  policy,  alike  in  his  public  ministry  and  in  his 
teaching  of  his  disciple  circle,  Jesus  began  definitely  to 
face  the  prospect  of  partial  failure,  and  to  readjust  his  out- 
look on  his  Mission.  F7om  Caasarea  Pliilippi  the  chajige 
is  inani/est  in  the  common  tradition  underlying  all  our 
Synoptic  Gospels  ;  and  it  is  made  specially  plain  in  Mark, 
the  most  purely  historical  of  the  three,  in  form  as  in  sub- 
stance. But  not  even  in  its  author's  mind  was  there  a 
consciousness  of  this  development,^  or  indeed  of  any 
development,  in  the  way  in  which  Jesus  had  viewed  the 
ministry  lying  before  him,  and  in  his  reading  of  Isaiah 
xl.  ff.  For  Mark,  that  is,  as  probably  for  all  his  fellow 
disciples,  Jesus  had  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry 
foreseen  the  Cross  that  was  its  actual  earthly  end,  though 
he  only  began  to  speak  of  it  to  his  inner  circle  at  Cassarea 
Philippi,  towards  its  close. 

From  that  time  forward,  both  in  his  own  thoughts  and 
in  his  teaching — and  so  in  the  Synoptic  narrative  based 
on  Apostolic  witness — the  Kingdom's  coming  and  ike 
centre  of  gravity  in  his  own  Messianic  \'ocation  shifted 

^  The  fact  that  the  original  apostolic  stratum  of  facts  and 
sayings,  reflecting  Jesus'  own  conception  of  liis  ministry,  was 
in  this  respect  more  in  keeping  with  human  psychological  con- 
ditions, and  to  that  extent  more  historical  and  less  ideal  (in  an 
fl /)r»bn  sense)  than  the  conception  touching  it  and  him  enter- 
tained by  even  the  earliest  of  our  Evangelists,  tells  stronglv 
against  the  whole  mode  of  thought  known  as  '  the  Christ 
Mytli,'  used  to  evaporate  the  historicity  of  Jesus  of  Nazaretli 
as  the  real  source  of  '  the  Christ  of  Fait'i ' 


INTRODUCTION  65 

more  decidedly  into  the  future,  a  future  indeterminate  in- 
deed, but  not  remote.  The  first  act  in  this  future  was  to 
be  the  imminent  crisis  of  conflict  with  the  religious  au- 
thorities of  Judaism,  particularly  those  in  Jerusalem,  the 
centre  of  Israel's  religious  life  and  worship,  which  he  saw 
to  be  inevitable  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  mission,  and  the 
issue  of  which  promised  to  be  his  death  and  the  seeming 
defeat  of  his  cause.  Then  would  come  a  brief  interval, 
symbolized  by  the  'third  day'  of  Hos.  vi.  2,  ere  God 
should  manifestly  intervene  to  '  revive '  and  '  raise  up '  His 
own  cause  in  His  people  Israel  (cf.  Acts  iii.  19  f.),  and  send 
again  His  Christ  in  power  and  glory  to  restore  all  things 
according  to  the  message  of  prophecy  (ib.  21,  cf.  I  Pet.  i, 
10-12),  particularly  Isa.  xl.  ff.  Thus  he,  Jesus,  would 
become  openly  and  in  the  eyes  of  all  '  the  Christ,'  and 
that  in  a  sense  which  made  him  David's  '  Lord '  (Mark  xii. 
35-37,  cf.  Acts  ii.  32-36),  in  virtue  of  that  unique  Sonship 
to  God  which  was  his  all  through  his  ministry  as  the 
humble  '  Servant  of  the  Lord,'  but  was  finally  to  be  made 
patent  in  full  Messianic  power  (cf.  Rom.  i.  4).  Then 
would  the  Kingdom  have  '  come  in  power'  (Mark  ix.  1). 

In  foreshadowing  such  an  issue,  sure  in  principle  and 
effect,  but  vague  in  time  and  method  (Mark  xiii.  32)  even 
to  his  own  mind,  Jesus  makes  in  the  last  stage  of  his 
ministry  a  free,  prophetic  or  symbolic,  use  of  the  poetic 
imagery  of  Dan.  vii.  This  centres  in  the  figure  of  'one 
like  unto  a  son  of  man,'  already  individualized  by  Apoca- 
lyptic usage  (at  first  in  certain  circles,  but  now  more  or 
less  famihar  to  Palestinian  Judaism)  as  '  the  Son  of  man  ', 
to  whom  God  entrusts  the  function  of  judicial  separation 
between  the  righteous  and  all  others,  with  which  the  King- 
dom should  be  fully  established.  Thus  Jesus  could  throw 
out  his  final  challenge  to  those  who,  as  his  judges,  felt 
they  had  him  at  their  mercy,  in  apocalyptic  words  which 
were  also  a  supreme  expression  of  victorious  faith  in  his 
cause  as  having  the  Father  behind  it,  come  what  might ; 
'  I  am  (the  Christ) :  andj,?  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting 

F 


66  ST.   MARK 

at  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven'  (Mark  xiv.  62).  The  '  Eschatological '  in  Jesus' 
thought  is  but  the  continuation  in  poetic  form  of  the  essen- 
tially spiritual  and  religious  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
as  constituted  by  filial  relation  to  God,  a  relation  which, 
original  in  himself,  became  derivatively  the  experience  of 
all  his  followers-  the  nucleus  of  the  true  Israel  of  God. 

It  has  been  needful  to  dwell  on  this  cardinal  feature  of 
the  Marcan  picture  of  Jesus,  the  naturalness  of  the  psycho- 
logical development  of  his  thought  touching  his  own 
vocation  and  ministry,  because  this  is  so  central  to  the 
whole  question  of  the  historicity  of  Mark's  Gospel.  One 
might  add  a  good  deal  bearing  on  other  aspects  of  this 
subject,  were  it  needful :  but  most  of  it  has  already  been 
excellently  put  by  Professor  F.  C.  Burkitt  in  his  Gospel 
History  cuui  its  Transinissiott,  in  the  chapter  on  the 
historical  value  of  St.  Mark.  There  he  shews  that  it 
does  '  approve  itself  as  an  adequately  historical  outline 
of  the  main  events '  of  the  story  of  Jesus :  and  his 
general  finding  is  that  it  does  'not  lend  itself  easily 
to  attempts  which  seek  to  explain  the  Gospel  as  a  work 
designed  to  set  forth  particular  doctrines  or  theories 
about  Jesus  and  the  Church'  (p.  66).  Indeed,  it  is  a 
general  experience  that  the  more  closely  one  studies  our 
Mark,  especially  in  the  light  of  those  of  its  references 
to  Jesus'  human  characteristics  and  experiences  which  the 
other  Synoptics  pass  over  lightly  or  in  silence,  the  more 
one  comes  to  prize  it  as  afifording  essential  data  for  an 
historical  picture  of  Jesus  in  the  modern  sense,  or  even 
hints  towards  a  biography  of  him  within  the  period 
of  his  public  ministry.  It  is  true  that  neither  of  these 
things  does  the  Evangelist  himself  set  out  to  give  his 
readers,  but  rather  the  Gospcl-inessai^c  of  Jesus  the  Christ, 
as  presented  by  and  in  him  to  men  in  deed  and  word.  1 1 
is  true  also  that  both  the  other  Synoptics  present  invalu- 
able supplementary  materials  towards  an  adequate  account 


INTRODUCTION  67 

of  Jesus'  Gospel  and  personality,  as  expressed  in  teaching 
and  in  intercourse  with  individual  men  and  women — the 
latter  a  feature  which  Luke  brings  out  in  several  striking 
episodes  (compare  also  that  of  the  Sinful  Woman,  now 
preserved,  out  of  place,  in  John  viii).  But  not  only  does 
the  degree  to  which  they  are  able  to  present  that  material 
in  an  historically  ordered  form  depend  upon  their  use  of 
Mark  :  it  is  also  in  his  presentation  of  the  course  of  Jesus' 
ministry  that  there  is  still  to  be  found  in  purest  form  the 
essential  outline  of  Jesus'  public  career  and  of  his  character 
as  expressed  in  it,  along  with  some  most  representative 
specimens  of  his  teaching.^  These  are  partly  peculiar  to 
Mark  and  partly  exist  there  in  a  more  historically  original 
form  or  setting  than  in  the  other  Synoptics. 

In  all  respects,  therefore,  the  Marcan  Gospel  must  lie 
at  the  basis  of  modern  historical  reconstruction  of  the 
figure  of  Jesus,  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  and  the  Christ, 
whether  as  regards  ground-plan  of  his  ministry,  its  atmo- 
sphere and  original  perspective,  its  concrete  setting,  or  the 
use  which  can  be  made,  with  something  like  assurance,  of 
the  additional  data  which  exist  in  the  other  Gospels.  For 
while  these  latter  make  each  its  own  positive  contribution 
to  certain  aspects  of  the  person  and  ministry  of  their 
Central  Figure,  without  which  our  conception  of  Jesus  and 
his  Gospel  would  be  indefinitely  less  many-sided  and  rich  ; 
still  much  of  this  very  material  gains  half  its  full  and  con- 
vincing historical  meaning  from  the  juster  perspective  in 
which  we  are  able  to  see  it  by  aid  of  the  stury  in  Mark, 
with  its  more  distinctly  indicated  stages,  alike  in  the  out- 

^  To  what  has  been  said  above  (p.  23")  may  here  be  added 
the  words  of  another,  there  cited.  '  The  Marcan  Gospel  would 
represent  the  earliest  exposition  of  the  main  facts  of  our  Lord's 
ministry  and  passion  and  resurrection,  together  with  such  a 
selection  of  His  teachings  and  works  as  would  establish  the 
central  doctrine  and  the  Cross,  and  free  the  Gospel  from  all  ex- 
clusive Jewish  interpretations.  ...  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Cross  that  is  central  in  Mk.,  rather  than  any  apocalyptic  train 
of  teaching.' 


68  ST.   MARK 

ward  and  inward  experience  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  Apart, 
then,  from  Mark's  Gospel  the  biographical  data  embedded 
in  the  other  Gospels  would  remain  for  us  largely  potential : 
with  it  their  full  value  can  become  realized ;  and  thereby 
even  their  religious  worth  for  the  quickening  and  guidance 
of  spiritual  life  in  our  own  day  can  be  greatly  enhanced. 
Progress  in  the  mastery  of  the  Synoptic  problem,  which 
has  recently  been  rapid  and  has  now  gone  far  towards  its 
goal,  may  ere  long  yield  the  means  of  writing  the  '  Life  of 
Christ '  with  a  new  exactitude  in  the  historical  use  of  the 
Evangelical  material,  particularly  as  regards  relative  order 
and  context.  If  so,  this  will  be  rendered  possible  by  a 
just  appreciation  of  the  fundamental  historical  value  of  the 
Marcan  narrative,  both  in  itself  and  in  its  relation  to  its 
sister  Gospels.^ 

17.    Literature. 

In  addition  to  the  well-known  works  on  New  Testament 
Introduction,  Articles  in  the  Bible  Dictionaries  (including 
The  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels),  &c.,  the  follow- 
ing may  be  recommended  as  useful.  Those  entirely  in 
English  are  marked  with  an  asterisk. 

Older  Commentaries. 

Alford,  Greek  Tcstanictit,  vol.  i. 

*  Lindsay,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark.     (T.  &  T.  Clark, 

Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes.) 
Meyer,    Critical  and  Excgetical  Handbook   to    the    Gospels    of 
Mark  and  Luke.     ( T.  &  T.  Clark's  translation.) 

*  MoRisoN,   A  Practical    Cotmneniaty  on  the    Gospel  according 

to  St.  Mark. 

*  Plumptre,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew,  St.  Ma>k,  and 

St.  Luke.     (Ellicott's  New  Tesiamctit  for  English  Readers, 
vol.  i.) 
♦Riddle,  The  Gospel  of  Mark.     {Schaff^s  Popular  Conntientary 
on  the  New  Testatnent.) 

'  The  value  of  Luke  in  particular,  in  virtue  of  the  indepen- 
dent historical  value  of  its  '  special  source,'  has  recently  been 
put  strongly,  but  not  too  strongly,  by  Canon  Streeter  in  The 
Hihhert  Journal  of  Oct. ,  1 92 1 . 


INTRODUCTION  69 

More  Recent, 

The  Expositor'' s  Greek  Testament.    Vol.  i,  The  Synoptic  Gospels, 

by  Professor  Bruce  :  1897. 
The  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges.     Editions  on 

the  English  and  Greek  text  respectively. 
Gould,  A   Critical  and  Exegetical   Comtneniary  on  the  Gospel 

according  to   St.    Mark.     (International    Critiral    Com 

mentary).    1896. 
SwETE,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark,  1898. 
Allan  Menzies,   The  Eailiest  Gospel,  1901. 
LoiSY,  Les  Evangiles  synoptiqnes   1907-8. 
\^y.i-t.KAV%^ti,  Das  Evangeliiint  Marci,  2nd  ed..  1909. 
*Montefiore,    The     Synoptic    Gospels,    vol.    i,    1909    (where 

references  to  foreign  commentaries  maj-  be  lound). 

*  Bacon,  The  Biginnings  of  Gospel  Story,  1909. 
Lagrange  (Pere),  Evangilc  selon  S.  Marc.  Paris,  1911. 

*  Allen,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark.      (Oxford   Church 

Comm.).     1915. 
♦Young,    The   College  St.  Mark  (The   Christian  Lit.  Soc.  for 
India).     1916. 

*  Wood,  in  Peakc\^  Commentary  on  the  Bible,  1919. 

Books  for  Reference. 

Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission,  3rd  ed.,  191 1. 

,.      ,,     Earliest  Sotirccs/or  tlie  Ei/e  o/Jesiis,  2nd  ed.,  1921. 
O.xford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  1911. 
DENNEY,yip5?<5  and  the  Gospel,  1913 
J.  Weiss.  Das  UrcIinstentHiu,  19 J 7. 
Bacon,  Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel?     19 19. 
E.  Meyer,  Urspnmgu.  Anjdnge  des  Christentums,  1921. 


CONTENTS   AND   ANALYSIS 

i.  1-13.  Introduction:  the  Preparation  for  Jesus'  Ministry. 

A.     The  Galilean  Ministry  and  after  :  i.  14-x. 
Summary  of  Jesus'  Gospel-ministry  in  Galilee  :   14  f. 

1. 16-iii.  6.  (i)  The  First  Stage  :  beginnings  and  main  issues. 
(rt)   Call    of  the    First    Disciples    (i.    16-20)  :  a  memorable 
day  in  Jesus'  ministry  (21-34). 

(b)  Widening  mission  in  Galilee :  a  preaching  tour  of 
adjacent  villages  (35-39)  :  the  cure  of  a  leper  (40-44) 
leads  against  Jesus'  will  to  a  mass  movement  (45). 

(c)  Typical  incidents  :  healing  and  forgiveness  of  sins — the 
latter  criticized  by  Scribes  (ii.  1-12)  :  call  of  Levi,  leading 
to  criticism  by  '  Scribes  of  the  Pharisees  '  of  his  relations 
with  '  publicans  and  sinners,' and  Jesus' defence  (13-17^: 
a  kindred  episode  illustrative  of  the  'old'  and  'new'  as 
in  conflict  (18-22)  :  two  further  cases  of  controvers}', 
i.e.  as  to  the  Sabbath  (23-iii.  5):  extremes  unite  against 
Jesus  (iii.  6). 

iii.  7-vii.  23.     (ii)  Second  Stage  :  growing  popularity  and 

extending  scope  of  Jesus'  mission. 
(i)   First  phase  :  iii.  7-vi.  6a. 
(rt)   Retirement   to    the    seaside,  where    crowds    from    afar 

collect  :  many  cures  and  exorcisms  (iii.  7-12  \ 
(6)    Appointment    of    the    Twelve    (iii.    13-iq) :     criticism 

developes,  his  power  being  traced  to  Beelzebub  (20-30^ : 

Jesus'  kindred  in  God  (31-35). 
(c)  Mass-teaching   again  by  the  sea,  now  by  Parables  (e.g. 

the  Sower)  ;  its  reason,  two  types  of  hearers  (iv.  1-12,  33  f.) ; 

the  fundamental  parable,  bearing  on  this,  interpreted  to 

the  disciples  (13-20)  ;  certain  related   principles  (21-25), 

with    two  further    parables    of  the    Kingdom   of  God  as 

growing  like  seed  (26  34^ 
(f/)  On   the  East  side  of  the  Lake  :    stilling  of  the  storm  ; 

Gerasene  demoniac  cured,  and  the  sequel  (iv.  35-v.  20). 
{e)  On   the  West  side  again  :    healing  drawn  from  him  by 

a  woman,  and  raising  of  Jairus'   daughter  (v.  ar-43)  :  at 

Nazareth,  where  he  is  met  by  special  unbelief  (vi.  3-63). 
(2)  Second  phase  :    Jesus'  pn/>iiinritv  at    its  height,   but   with 

oininons  Mtetiare  of  cmijliit  -with  the  authorities  in  Stale  and 

Church:  vi   6b-vii.  23. 


CONTENTS   OF  THE   GOSPEL  71 

(rt)  A  second  and  wider  tour  in  Western  Galilee,  with  the 

help  of  the  Twelve,  sent  out  two  by  two  (vi.  6  b-13). 

His  fame  reaches   Herod,   who  had  recently   slain  John 

the  Baptist  (14-29). 
(i)  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand  (30-44)  ;  Jesus  appears  to 

his  disciples,  walking  on  the  Lake  (45-52). 
(c)    Popular    enthusiasm     throughout    Gennesaret    for   the 

Healer  (53-56)  ;  but  Pharisaic  criticism  on  the  score  of  '  the 

traditions   of  the    Elders '   brings   on    a    decisive    conflict 

(vii.  1-23:  cfviii.   11-21). 
vii.  24-x.  52.  (iii)  Third  Stage:  the  turning  from  Galilee  and 

facing  towards  a  new  venture  in  Jerusalem. 
(i)  First  phase  of  this  transition  :  vii.  24-viii.  26. 
(«)    Retirement    beyond    Galilee    northwards  :     the    Syro- 

Phoenician  woman  (vii.  24-30). 
(6)  Return  to  East  side  of  Lake  (Decapolis)  :  cure  of  a  deaf 

mute  (31-37). 
(c)   Second  feeding  of  a  multitude  (viii.    i-io),  followed  bj' 

a   discussion    with     Pharisees    (11-13^,    which    leads     to 

a  warning  against  their  '  leaven  '  and  that  of  Herod,  which 

the  disciples  misunderstood  (14-21)  :   gradual  healing  of 

blind  man  in  Bethsaida  (22-26). 

(2)  Second  phase  of  transition  to  a  nezv  policy  :  viii.  27-ix.  50. 
(a)  The  confession  at    Caesarea    Philippi  :    suffering   to  be 

Messiah's  lot  and  that  of  his  disciples  (viii.  27-ix.  1). 
(6)  The  Transfiguration  and  related  teaching  as  to  '  Elijah  ' 
the  forerunner  (ix.  2-13). 

(c)  The  demoniac  boy  and  the  secret  of  power  (14-29). 

(d)  Private  return  through  Galilee  :  he  teaches  his  disciples 
(at  Capernaum)  on  humility,  discipleship,  offending  'little 
ones,'  and  self-mastery  (30-50). 

(3)  Third  phase  :  Jesus'  back  turned  on  Galilee,  his  face  to- 
wards Jerusalem  and  its  issues :  ch.  x. 

(a)  Pharisees  question  him  about  Divorce  (x-12)  :  little 
children  blessed  as  heirs  of  the  Kingdom  (13-16) :  heritage 
of  the  Kingdom  and  riches  (17-27)  ;  the  compensations 
of  'leaving  all'  (28-31^. 

(b)  On  the  road  to  Jerusalem  a  third  warning  of  the  disciples 
as  to  the  Passion  ( 32-34)  ;  the  ambition  of  James  and  John 
in  view  of  the  object  of  the  journey,  and  teaching  evoked 
thereby  (35-45). 

(c)  Bartimaeus'  faith  in  Jesus'  Messiahship  rewarded  (46-52). 

B.     The  Last  Days  in  and  near  Jerusalem  :  xi.  i-xv.  47. 

(«")  The  Messianic  Entry  (xi.  i-ii). 

(6)  Incidents  of  the  next  da}'.  The  Barren  Fig-tree  (12-14, 
cf.  20  ff.)  :  the  Purging  of  the  Temple  (15-19^. 


72  CONTENTS   OF  THE   GOSPEL 

(c)  Later  incidents  (xi.  20-xiii).  Lessonsof  the  Withered  Fig- 
tree  (20-25) :  the  challenge  of  the  Jewish  authorities  met 
(27-33),  find  followed  up  bj'  the  parable  of  the  Vineyard 
(xii.  i-ii):  the  conflict  developes,  as  seen  in  a  pair  of 
test  questions  put  by  those  united  against  Jesus  (12-27)  '■ 
a  typical  conversation  with  a  scribe  on  the  essence  of 
religion  (28-34):  Jesus' own  Messianic  challenge  (35-37), 
his  counter-criticism  of  scribism  (38-40)  ;  the  religion 
of  the  widow's  mite  (41-44").  The  Temple,  a  private 
conversation  as  to  its  coming  fate  and  the  future  duty  of 
Messiah's  disciples  (xiii). 

(ei)  Wednesdayin  Passion  Week.  Crisis  impending  (xiv.  1-2); 
the  last  meal  at  Bethany,  and  its  effect  on  Judas  (3-1 1\ 

(e)  Thursday.  The  Paschal  Supper  arranged  in  Jerusalem 
(12-16),  and  celebrated  with  special  features  added 
in  view  of  Jesus'  coming  death  (17-25):  his  desertion 
foretold,  Gethsemane,  the  betrayal  and  arrest  (26-52\ 

(/)  Friday.  Midnight  examinations  and  condemnation  bj' 
the  High  Priest  and  his  assessors  (53-65);  Peter's  denial 
(66-72^.  Early  morning  confirmation  of  the  earlier 
informal  finding,  and  trial  by  Pilate  (xv.  i  ff.)  :  episode 
of  Barabbas  and  popular  demand  for  Jesus'  crucifixion 
(6-15).  The  mocking  and  crucifixion,  with  certain 
episodes  (16-41)  :  the  burial  (42-47). 

(g)  Easter    Sunday.     The  Women    and  the    Empty  Tomb ; 
their  flight  in  fear,  and  silence  (xvi.  1-8). 
[Later  Endings  :  (a)  xvi.  9  20  ;  and  (i)]. 

Abbreviations  (see  Introduction,  pp.  19  ff.). 

Mk.     Mark's  own  additional  matter. 

P.     Distinctively  *  Petrine  matter. 

Q.     'Teaching'  matter  common  to  our  Matthew  and  Luke  in 

particular,  but  at  times  shared  also  by  Mark. 
X.     The  original  Common  Apostolic  Tradition  at  the  basis  of 

all  narrative  traditions,  but  known  to  us  only  in   special 

lines  of  transmission,  viz.  X'^''',  X'-'',  X"^",   implied  in  our 

Mark,  Luke,  Matthew. 
X"''.      Mark's  primary  Apostolic  tradition  (Petrine). 
X"^^.    Mark's  secondary  tradition. 
LXX  =  Tiic  Srfitumrint  or  Seventy,  i.  c    the  Greek  version  of 

the  Hebrew  Bible,  so  styled  from  the  legend  that  it  was 

the  work  of  seventy  translators. 


'   Not  alwaj'S  exclusively  so :   P.  and  X^"'  often  blend. 


THE    GOSPEL   ACCORDING    TO 


ST.  MARI 


V 


REVISED  VERSION   WITH   ANNOTATIONS 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO 


ST.   MARI 


\. 


[Mk]  *  The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  1 
'-^  [the  Son  of  Godl. 

^  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  the  Son  of  God. 

*  The  S3'mbols  (see  Abbreviations  on  p.  72)  placed  in  square 
brackets  indicate  the  probable  source  of  the  matter  in  question. 
They  apply  to  al)  that  follows,  until  the  point  where  the  next 
symbol  occurs. 

r  1  denotes  words  open  to  doubt  as  to  their  being  either  part  of 
Mark's  original  text,  or  actual  words  of  Jesus. 

Title.  The  title  in  ancient  manuscripts  appears  in  different 
forms.  In  the  oldest  of  our  Greek  MSS.  it  is  simply  'According 
to  Mark'  ;  later  it  is  'The  Gospel  according  to  Mark'  ;  later  still 
it  is  'The  Ho]3'  Gospel  according  to  Mark  '.  Exactly  when  any 
such  title,  in  its  simplest  form,  was  first  added  we  cannot  say  ; 
probably  very  soon  after  it  passed  into  currency.  Neither  do  we 
know  when  the  records  of  Christ's  life  first  came  to  have  the  dis- 
tinctive name  of  '  Gospels.'  But  they  were  already-  so  styled  in 
Justin  Martyrs  Apology  (i.  66\  written  soon  after  a.d.  150.  The 
title  here  means  not  merely  that  the  book  contains  the  Gospel  story 
as  Mark  was  wont  to  tell  it,  but  that  Mark  wrote  it 

Introduction  :  the  Preparation  for  Jesus'  Ministry 
i.  1-13  (cf.  Matt.  iii.  1-12  ;  Luke  iii.  1-18). 

*A  brief  introductory' section  shewing  how  the  work  of  John 
the  Baptist,  and  the  baptism  and  temptation  of  Jesus,  led  up  to 
the  ministry  in  Galilee'  (H.  G.  Wood,  in  Peake  s  Commentary  on 
the  Bible) — i.e.  were  'The  beginning  of  Jesus  Christ's  Gospel.' 

The  meaning  and  purpose  of  Mark's  opening  paragraph  maj' 
best  be  seen  by  comparison  with  the  kindred  opening  to  Peter's 
missionary  address  to  the  Gentile  Cornelius  and  his  friends  at 
Caesarea.  in  Acts  x.  36  if.  'The  message  which  God  sent  unto 
the  Children  of  Israel,  preaching  a  Gosf-el  of  Peace  (Isa.  Iii.  7)  by 
Jesus  Christ.  ...  ye  j'ourselves  know  the  tidings  which  spread 
through  all  Judaea,  beginning  from  Galilee  after  the  bn/tism  wliir/t 


76  ST.  MARK  1.  i.     Mk 

John  preached —exen  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  lioiv  God  aiioinied  hint  ivith 
holy  Spirit  and  poiver.''  Here  we  have  essentially  the  same  idea, 
that  of  a  Gospel  or  Glad  Message,  such  as  Isaiah  contemplated  in 
Hi.  7,  Ixi.  I,  sent  from  God  and  proclaimed  by  Jesus  His  '  Christ '  or 
Anointed  One,  beginning  from  Galilee,  after  John  had  played  his 
part  as  Forerunner.  Both  passages  are  entirely  on  the  lines  of 
prophecy,  especially  that  in  Isaiah  xl.  ff.,  as  '  fulfilled'  in  a  higher 
form  in  Jesus  and  His  message  of  God's  imminent  self-manifesta- 
tion in  new  graciousness  and  power.  It  was  a  Gospel  of  God's 
real  reign  among  His  People,  summed  up  in  the  phrase  '  The 
Kingdom  of  God' — again  on  the  lines  of  Isa.  Hi.  7,  '  saying  unto 
Zion,  Thy  God  reigneth.' 

That  such  is  the  conception  (cf.  Intj  oduction,  §  4)  lying  behind 
this  opening,  is  borne  out  by  verses  14  f.  (following  on  the 
'beginning,'  or  inauguration,  cf.  Luke  iii.  23),  especially  'The 
season  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  near  ;  repent  and 
believe  the  Glad  Message.'  It  is  further  illustrated  by  Jesus' 
actual  preaching  of  that  Gospel  at  Nazareth,  in  terms  of  Isa.  Ixi.  i, 
as  recorded  in  Luke  iv.  16  ff.  This  conception  of  Jesus'  Mission  is 
truly  Petrine,  as  we  see  not  only  from  Acts  x.  36  ff.  and  his  earlier 
speeches  in  Acts —particularly  his  reference  to  Jesus  as  Isaiah's 
'  Servant  of  the  Lord  '  (iii.  13,  26,  iv.  30)  — but  also  from  the  whole 
idea  of  Jesus  as  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  underlying  the  Epistle 
of  Peter  (e.g.  i.  10 f.,  ii.  6f,,  22-2 1\  The  introduction  is  not 
confined  to  a  description  of  the  mission  of  John  the  Baptist,  as 
preparatory  to  the  higher  mission  of  Jesus  as  Messianic  Proclaimer 
of  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  (1-8),  but  includes  (cf.  Acts  x.  38) 
the  letter's  solemn  vocation  as  the  Christ  and  his  spiritual  proba- 
tion (9-13).  Thus,  in  this  opening  section  we  have  Jesus  Christ, 
as  the  preacher  of  Good  News,  brought  on  the  scene.  Then  his 
actual  Gospel  Ministry  opens  in  14  ff. 

1.  (The)  Beginning-  of  tixe  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 
This  =  *  Inauguration  of  the  Glad  Message  belonging  to  Jesus 
Christ.'  Mark's  abrupt,  challenging,  opening  sentence  goes  with 
characteristic  directness  to  the  heart  of  his  subject.  In  form  (cf. 
Hosea  i.  2  in  LXX,  *  Beginning  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  in  (the 
ministry  of)  Hosea')  it  may  be  compared  with  the  corresponding 
one  in  Matthew,  '  Book  of  origin  (Birth-roll,  Moffatt)  of  Jesus 
Christ,  Son  of  David,  Son  of  Abraham'— a  sentence  as  typical  of 
the  standpoint  of  that  Evangelist  as  this  is  of  Mark.  Only  it  is 
probable  tliat  Mark  felt  no  need,  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  of  any 
further  addition  to  the  descriptive  name  'Jesus  Christ,'  the  Great 
'Evangelist'  in  Isaiah's  sense,  into  whose  labours  in  the  Gospel 
others  were  to  enter  as  his  disciples  and  followers  (comp.  Acts  i.  i ; 
Heb.  ii.  3  f.).  Indeed,  it  is  likely  enough  tliat  it  was  the  influence 
of  the  parallel  opening  of  Matthew  which  suggested  (as  elsewhere 
in  our  text  of  Mark)  the  supplemental  description,  '  God's  Son,' 


ST.  MARK  1.  I.     Mk  77 

added  by  some  early  copyist  or  editor  (perhaps  along  with  v.  a), 
who  took  '  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ '  in  a  new  sense,  viz.  touching 
Jesus  Christ — so  making  him  its  object  (the  later  or  Apostolic 
usage,  as  in  Paul")  rather  than  its  medium. 

In  its  original  form  and  meaning  this  opening  represents  a  very 
primitive  point  of  view ;  and  we  must  observe  that  Jesus'  procla- 
mation of  the  Gospel  is  here  conceived  as  by  deed  as  much  as  by 
word,  as  the  sequel  shews,  in  keeping  with  the  whole  prophetic 
picture  of  Messiah  :  compare  Luke  xxiv.  19,  '  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
...  a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and  word  before  God  and  all  the 
People.'  The  verse  as  a  whole  probably  refers,  not,  as  some 
think,  to  the  whole  book,  but  to  what  immediately  follows,  viz., 
the  preliminary  section  (vv.  2-13).  This  deals  both  with  the 
Forerunner,  John  the  Baptist,  whose  ministry  and  message  are 
here  treated  as  an  integral  part  of  the  prelude  to  '  The  Gospel  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God'  (so  he  is  regarded  as  'far  more  than  a 
jirophet'),  and  with  his  work  of  preparing  for  Jehovah's  coming 
Kingdom  by  his  '  baptism  of  Repentance'  culminating  in  the  in- 
auguration thereby  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  great  Evangelist  of 
'God's  Gospel'  of  the  Kingdom  (i.  14  f.,  cf.  Luke  iii.  23,  'And 
Jesus  himself,  when  he  began '—inaugurated  his  ministry — 'was 
about  thirty  years  of  age').  Such  is  Jesus'  own  witness  to  him 
later  on  (Luke  vii.  26  ;  Matt.  xi.  9.),  quoting  Mai.  iii.  i  in  support 
of  his  words,  and  adding  (on  another  occasion,  according  to  Luke 
xvi.  16),  '  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  lasted  till  John  :  since  then 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  preached.'  Yet  John  entered 
not  himself  into  the  experience  of  the  Kingdom  he  proclaimed  as 
at  hand  (Luke  vii.  28;  Matt.  xi.  11).  Here  already  we  have  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  broad  distinction  between  '  the  King- 
dom '  as  at  first  present  only  as  a  '  Gospel '  or  Glad  Message  of 
what  was  'near'— on  the  point  of  being  manifested — and  as  a 
realized  order  or  realm  of  Divine  spiritual  power,  fully  set  up  or 
planted  on  earth.  Between  these  senses  is  an  intermediate  and 
transitional  one,  seen  in  Luke  xvii.  21,  according  to  which,  the 
sphere  of  the  Kingdom  being  the  invisible  world  of  the  soul  (even 
the  individual  soul),  it  became  alread3'  present  in  some  during 
Jesus'  ministry,  before  it  was  manifest  in  history  as  a  social  order 
or  Church. 

Gospel.  This  familiar  word,  with  all  its  gracious  associations, 
comes  to  us  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  '  Godspell,'  which  means  '  God- 
story,'  originally  perhaps  good  story,  like  the  Greek  word.  This, 
preserved  in  our  '  Evangel,' signified  originally  a  presenter  reward 
given  for  good  news,  and  later  good  news  itself.  In  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  O.T.  it  is  applied  generally  to  any  kind  of '  good 
news,'  and  in  its  verbal  form  specifically  to  the  prophetic  announce- 
ment of  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  (e.g.  Isa.  Ixi.  i). 
In  the  N  T.  it  is  closely  related  to  the  great  idea  of  the  Kingdom 


78 


ST.  MARK  l.i.     Mk 


of  God,  as  '  the  good  news  of  the  Kingdom '  (Matt.  iv.  23,  ix.  35, 
xxiv.  14,  &c. ).  The  word  is  used  by  Paul  more  frequently  and 
with  greater  variety  of  application  than  by  any  other  N.  T.  writer. 
It  occurs  once  in  Peter  (iv.  17),  once  in  the  Apocalypse  (xiv.  6), 
twice  in  Acts  (xv.  7,  xx.  24),  four  times  in  Matt.,  seven  times  in 
Mark  (also  in  xvi.  15),  never  in  Luke's  Gospel,  John's  Gospel  and 
Epistles,  Hebrews  or  James,  but  some  sixty  times  in  the  Epistles 
ascribed  to  Paul. 

The  present  passage  is  the  only  one  in  the  evangelic  narratives 
in  which  the  particular  phrase  '  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ '  is  found. 
Elsewhere  it  is  simply  '  the  Gospel,'  '  the  Gospel  of  God  '  (Mark 
i.  14),  or  '  of  the  Kingdom.'  In  the  Gospels  themselves  the  phrase 
'The  Gospel'  denotes  the  good  news  proclaimed  or  brought  by 
Christ :  only  in  the  Epistles  does  it  mean  the  good  news  about 
Christ.  Accordingly  'the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ'  (as  argued  in 
the  last  note)  probably  has  here  its  usual  meaning  in  the  Gospels, 
viz.,  the  Glad  Message  belonging  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  sense  sug- 
gested also  by  comparison  with  vv.  14  f.,  which  take  up  anew  the 
theme  of  verse  i. 

of  Jesus  Christ.  The  person  whose  ministry  of  Gospel 
proclamation  is  to  be  the  subject  of  Mark's  narrative  is  so  designated 
at  the  outset,  with  more  fulness  than  in  the  narrative  proper.  He 
has  first  the  personal  name  '  Jesus  '  (cf.  Matt.  i.  21,  25)^ — a  name 
common  enough  among  the  Jews,  identical  with  the  O.  T.  Jehoshua 
(Num.),  Joshua  (,Exod.  xxiv.  13,  &c.),  or  Jeshua,  which  means 
'Jehovah-salvation.'  To  this  is  added  the  q^c/rt/ name  '  Christ,' 
the  Greek  equivalent  of  Messiah,''  the  Hebrew  word  for  '  Anointed 
One.'  Certain  who  held  office  in  Israel  were  anointed  to  it.  e.g. 
priests  (^Lev.  iv.  3;  Ps.  cv.  15V  But  in  the  O.  T.  the  King  is 
specially  spoken  of  as  God's  anointed  (i  Sam.  xxiv.  7,  11  ;  Ps  ii 
3  ;  Isa.  xliv.  i,  &c. )  ;  and  in  Daniel  (ix.  25)  Messiah  is  described 
as  '  prince.'  So  the  term  '  Messiah  '  or  'Christ'  became  a  theo- 
cratic name,  expressing  the  idea  that  he  who  was  to  come  to 
restore  Israel,  was  to  come  in  the  character  of  a  king,  one  of 
David's  line.  In  later  non-canonical  literature  of  Judaism  it  is 
used  of  the  Messianic  king  (cf.  Psalms  of  Solomon,  xvii.  36,  xviii.  8, 
'Christ  (the)  Lord,'  as  in  Lk.  ii.  11,  or  'the  Lord's  Christ,'  as 
Lk.  ii.  26).  This  official  sense,  however,  gradually  fell  away  in 
Christian  usage,  and  the  term  'Christ'  became  more  and  more 
a  personal  or  proper  name  like  Jesus,  As  such  it  is  used  for  the 
most  part  even  in  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  But  in  the  body  of 
the  Gospels  (as  distinct  from  Matt.  i.  i  ;  Jolin  i.  17  ;  and  here)  it 
still  retains  its  technical  sense  and  is  best  rendered  '  the  Christ.' 

rson  of  God"'.  This  is  absent  from  N  Syr'"""'  (O.S.  lacking) 
Iren'/j  Or*  Bas.  ;  and  as  it  is  easier  to  explain  its  addition  than  its 
omission,  accidental  or  otherwise,  it  cannot  safely  be  treated  as 
part  of  the  original  text  :  comp.  the  probable  addition  also  in  v.  a. 


ST.  MARK  1.  2.     XMk  79 

[^X^k]  1  Even  as  it  is  written  ^  in  Isaiah  the  prophet, 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  read  in  the  prophets. 

2-3.  How  are  these  verses  to  be  connected  with  each  other 
and  with  the  opening  one  ?  The  punctuation  in  the  R.  V.  inipHes, 
probably  rightly,  that  v.  i ,  like  Matt.  i.  i,  stands  by  itself  as  title,  either 
to  what  follows  at  once  or  to  the  whole  book.  'Ihe  narrative  then 
begins  abruptly  with  verse  2,  and  runs  continuously  to  verse  4,  as 
follows:  'In  pursuance  of  the  Divine  counsel  made  known  in 
prophecy,  that  one  should  arise  as  [forerunner  of  Jesus  the  Christ 
and]  herald  of  preparation  for  Jehovah's  Kingdom,  came  John  the 
Baptizer,  with  his  proclamation.'  This  is  better  than  to  take 
verse  2  as  explanatory  of  i  and  following  loosely  thereon,  while 
with  verse  4  would  begin  the  narrative  proper  of  the  opening 
section  (1-13).  In  that  case  it  is  best  to  take  the  first  three  verses 
together,  as  they  stand  in  the  A.  V.,  only  with  a  comma  instead  of 
a  full  stop  between  verses  2  and  3.  Then  verses  1-3  would  serve 
as  introduction  to  the  first  stage  of  '  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,' 
viz.,  the  Baptist's  message  and  ministry,  which  ends  with  its 
bringing  on  the  scene,  equipped  for  his  task,  Jesus  as  the  Christ 
or  Anointed  of  God,  ready  to  enter  on  his  own  ministry  of  the 
Gospel  ( 14  f.).  But  the  sense  suggested  by  the  R.  V.  is  preferable, 
viz.,  that  the  whole  first  section  (1-13)  is  itself  the  introduction  or 
prelude  to  'the  Gospel  (ministry)  of  Jesus  Christ.' 

Even  as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the  prophet.  Unlike 
Matthew,  Mark  seldom  cites  prophecy.  Here  he  does  so  with  the 
view  of  shewing  that  the  events  in  which  he  recognizes  'the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  '  formed  part  of  the  Divine  plan.  The 
true  reading  here  is  not  'in  the  prophets,'  as  the  A.  V.,  but  'in 
Isaiah  the  Prophet,'  as  the  R.  V.  The  secondary  reading  is  an 
attempt  to  remove  the  difficulty  that  what  follows  immediately  in 
the  text  of  nearly  all  surviving  authorities  comes  not  from  Isaiah 
but  from  Mai.  iii.  i.  But  the  awkwardness  of  this,  as  it  still  stands 
in  our  MSS.,  is  probably  due  to  the  quotation  from  Mai.  iii.  i 
having  been  added  to  Mark's  original  text,  either  from  the  later 
episode  in  the  other  Synoptic  Gospels  where  Jesus  witnesses  10 
John  in  these  words  (Luke  vii.  27  ;  Matt.  xi.  lo"),  or  from  current 
usage  (its  form  is  shorter  than  that  in  Matt,  and  Luke).  Neither 
Matt,  nor  Luke,  which  had  Mark  before  them  at  a  far  earlier  stage 
than  that  represented  by  even  our  oldest  MSS.,  shews  traces  of 
Mai.  iii.  I  here.  Yet  it  would  have  suited  their  purpose  admirably, 
as  coming  after  their  Nativity  chapters,  which  had  already  intro- 
duced Jesus  on  the  scene  as  God's  Son.     But  Mark  has  not  yet 

'  This  symbol  is  partly  equivalent  to  Q"''  of  the  companion  com- 
mentaries :  see  Abbreviations  on  p.  72. 


8o  ST.  MARK  1.  3.     XMk 

[Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face, 

^\'ho  shall  prepare  thy  way  ;1 

The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness. 


done  so.  Hence  the  quotation  does  not  really  suit  what  precedes 
in  verse  i.  in  its  original  text ;  whereas  the  later  addition  to  it  of 
'  God's  Son  '  was  itself  perhaps  connected  with  the  earlier  insertion 
(originally  onl3'  as  a  parallel  in  the  margin)  of  the  kindred  quota- 
tion from  Malachi  (Basil  has  neither),  before  the  proper  sequel  to 
'  as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah.'  One  efTect  of  such  extension  of  the 
matter  introduced  by  '  even  as  it  is  written  '  is  somewhat  to  obscure 
the  probable  grammatical  (as  it  is  certainly  the  logical)  sequence 
of  verse  4,  'there  appeared  (lit.  "came  to  be")  John  the  Baptizer 
in  the  wilderness  (taking  up  the  same  phrase  in  the  prophecy), 
proclaiming'  preparation  bj'  repentance  for  the  Lord's  (i.  e.  God's) 
coming  (in  Messianic  blessing)  :  comp.  Luke  i.  16 f.,  esp.  'to  make 
ready  for  the  Lord  a  people  prepared.' 

Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before  tliy  face,  Who  shall 
prepare  thy  way.  Omit  with  the  R.  V.  the  words  '  before  thee  ' 
in  the  A.  V.,  which  follows  MSS.  in  which  the  assimila- 
tion to  Matt.  xi.  ID  is  made  complete.  This  quotation  is  from 
Mai.  iii.  i,  but  in  a  form  adapted,  as  it  seems,  to  its  present  use  as 
addressed  to  Messiah  ('thy  face,'  'thy  way,'  instead  of  'my'  as 
in  both  the  Heb.  and  LXX  text),  a  form  in  which  it  was  probably 
current  in  Christian  circles.  Thus  the  '  messenger'  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  prophet,  is  sent  before  Jehovah,  is  said  here  to  be  sent 
before  the  Messiah.  l"he  work  ascribed  to  the  'messenger'  in  the 
prophecy  is  a  work  of  preparation  for  the  sudden  coming  of 
Jehovah  in  judgement  to  His  temple  (see  xi.  15  fif.  for  a  fulfilment 
of  this  idea).  The  work  ascribed  to  the  Forerunner  in  the  Gospel 
is  that  of  religious  preparation  for  the  advent  of  the  object  of 
Israel's  hope.  As  officers  of  state  made  roads  ready  for  the  visits 
of  kings,  so  the  '  messenger '  was  to  make  spiritual  preparation 
for  the  Lord's  coming  in  the  person  of  His  Anointed. 

3.  The  voice  of  one  crying'  in  the  wilderness,  Make  ye  ready 
the  way  of  the  Lord.  Make  his  paths  straight.  The  quotation 
is  from  Isaiah  xi.  3.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  has  the  return  from 
Bab3'lon  in  view.  It  proclaims  '  the  glad  news  '  of  that  deliverance, 
and  gives  the  call  to  have  all  things  ready  for  Jehovah  when  He 
brings  his  people  out  of  exile,  through  the  desert,  to  their  land. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  in  Israel  was  to  have  its  complete  realization 
in  the  Messianic  kingdom.  So  the  past  national  deliverance  was 
taken  to  point  forward  to  the  greater  Messianic  deliverance,  and 
to  the  Forerunner's  summons  of  the  Jews  to  a  spiritual  preparation 
for  it. 


ST.  MARK  1.  ^,  5.     XMk  8i 

Make  ye  ready  the  way  of  the  Lord, 

Make  his  paths  straight  ; 
John  came,  who  baptized  in  the  wilderness  and  preached  4 
the  baptism  of  repentance  unto  remission  of  sins.     And  5 


4.  The  best  reading  here  is  that  which  is  represented  neither 
by  the  '  John  did  baptize  .  .  .  and  preach  '  of  the  A,  V.,  nor  by  the 
R.  V.  as  above,  but  by  this — 'There  appeared  (came  to  be) 
John  the  Baptizer  in  the  wilderness,  preaching.'  This,  the  best 
accredited  reading,  is  most  in  parallelism  ^vith  the  quotation, 
especially  as  regards  '  in  the  wilderness.'  '  The  Baptizer,'  lit.  '  the 
baptizing  one,'  is  Mark's  own  term  (so  vi.  14,  not  (,24),  25,  viii.  28). 

Jolin.  The  Hebre%v  Johanan.  According  to  Luke  i  John 
was  kinsman  to  Jesus  and  older  by  some  six  months,  and  since 
boyhood  had  lived  'in  the  desert'  ^i.  80)  as  a  religious  solitary. 
At  last  he  comes  forth,  '  the  time  of  his  showing  unto  Israel '  having 
arrived  ;  and  his  emergence  marks  a  great  stage  in  the  history  of 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

in  the  wilderness.  Thus  simply,  in  terms  of  Isaiah's  prophecy, 
is  the  scene  of  John's  ministry'  described.  In  Matthew  it  is  the 
wilderness  of  Judaea  (iii.  i).  What  is  meant  is  '  the  low  country 
by  the  Jordan,  called  the  Araba  (desert  or  steppe)  in  the  O.  T.' 
l^Montefiore).  It  was  a  tract  of  country  not  utterly  bare  and  profit- 
less, but  suitable  for  the  nomad,  yet  generally  broken,  barren,  rugged, 
treeless,  and  in  parts  dreary,  savage,  and  forbidding  (cf.  v.  13). 

preached:  literally  proclaimed  like  a  herald,  '  crying  aloud,' 
as  in  V.  3. 

the  baptism  of  repentance  :  rather  '  a  baptism  of  Repent- 
ance,' i.e.  a  rite  symbolizing  and  sealing  repentance,  at  once  as  its 
condition  and  issue,  viz.,  a  state  ot  contrite  amendment  of  life 
('  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,'  Luke  iii.  8),  in  preparation  for  the 
Kingdom  of  God  soon  to  be  inade  manifest  (cf.  notes  on  Matt.  iii. 
2.  14  f.).  Thus  it  was  something  provisional,  in  anticipation  of 
Messiah's  appearance  to  confer  the  specific  blessings  of  the 
Messianic  Age,  particularly  a  share  in  the  Spirit  (Joel  ii.)  which 
should  rest  on  him  in  pre-eminent  degree.  But  the  blessing  directly 
contemplated  by  such  'repentance,'  a  radical  'turning  '  or  change 
of  heart  (the  true  sense  of  mefaiioia,  a  Greek  word  first  found  in 
the  LXX  in  Proverbs,  and  then  in  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  IVisdom  of 
Solomoti),  was  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  actual  situation,  as  John 
saw  it,  corresponded  to  that  described  in  Isa.  i.  and  Mai.  iii  ;  and 
these  passages,  rather  than  any  typical  N.  T.  ones  in  which  the 
terms  occur,  should  be  in  our  minds  as  we  read  Mark's  description 
of  the  Baptist's  preaching.  The  special  defect  of  religion  as 
described  in  Malachi  was  utireality,  the  performance  of  religious 

G 


82  ST.  MARK  1.  4.     XMk 

duties  without  the  whole  heart  behind  them,  and  therefore  a  certain 
religious  insincerity,  shown  specially  on  the  ethical  side  of  religion 
as  dutifulness  towards  one's  neighbour.  Real  love  to  God,  and 
love  to  man  as  precious  in  His  sight,  these  were  largely  lacking. 
The  note  of  Isaiah  is  the  call  to  henrlfelt  repentance  or  'turning,' 
and  its  efficacy  as  the  assured  condition  of  Divine  forgiveness  and 
the  averting  of  judgement.  Thus  Isaiah,  i.  ]6ff.,  cries,  'Wash 
you,  make  3'ou  clean  :  put  away  the  evil  of  j'our  doings  from 
before  mine  eyes  :  cease  to  do  evil.  .  .  .  Come  now  and  let  us 
reason  together,  saith  the  Lord  :  Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet, 
they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow.  .  .  .  But  if  3'e  refuse  and  rebel,  ye 
shall  be  devoured  with  the  sword.' 

'Repentance'  was  the  great  word  on  John's  lips,  and  that  with 
a  view  to  the  approach  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  and  Messiah 
himself  with  'God's  Gospel'  (i.  14  f.,  cf.  Matt.  iii.  7-10).  In  the 
belief  of  the  more  spiritual  Jews,  the  sin  of  the  people  was  the 
cause  of  the  delay  of  Messiah's  advent ;  and  John's  baptism  in- 
volved the  sense  and  confession  of  sin,  and  readiness  to  accept 
God's  full  revelation  of  his  will  in  Messiah. 

unto  remission  of  sins  :  i.  e.  with  forgiveness  of  sins  as  its 
end.  That  a  real,  though  provisional,  forgiveness  oi past  sins  (on 
the  lines  of  Isa.  i.  16-18)  is  here  meant,  seems  probable  in  the 
light  of  the  whole  context  and  especially  v.  5,  '  confessing  their 
sins.'  Yet  it  lacked  something  of  personal  assurance  that  the 
repentance  was  sincere  and  deep  enough  to  be  accepted  by  God, 
and  was  in  fact  met  by  forgiveness  ;  and  so  fell  short  of  its  full 
Messianic  foim,  connected  also  with  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  (see 
Acts  ii.  38).  Matthew  (iii.  1),  but  not  Luke  (iii.  3^,  omits  the 
phrase,  as  apt  in  the  circles  he  has  in  view  to  be  taken  as  antici- 
pating or  making  superfluous  Christian  baptism  ;  whereas  in  fact 
Mark  has  no  such  thought,  as  is  evident  from  what  follows  (vv. 
7-8).  The  forgiveness  John  proclaimed  was  strictly  provisional, 
putting  its  recipients  into  the  position  of  penitents,  expectant  and 
prepared — if  only  the3'  remained  true  in  life  to  their  confession  — 
to  welcome  Messiah  as  the  final  deliverer  from  sin,  through  his 
gift  of  the  Spirit.  As,  too,  John's  accent  was  on  worthy  repent- 
ance, and  on  the  testing  nature  of  God's  Coming  as  'like  a  refiner's 
fire  '  (Mai.  iii.  2,  cf.  iv.  i\  discerning  the  secrets  of  each  heart,  his 
Message  as  a  whole  had  a  solemnly  awakening  tone  rather  than  a 
glad  and  heartening  one,  as  of  '  good  news,'  such  as  first  came 
with  Jesus  Christ  himself. 

Mark  deals  only  with  John's  mission  as  a  prelude  to  Jesus' ;  and 
so  he  dwells  on  the  aspect  of  similarity  and  continuity  (recognized 
also  in  Matt.  xi.  18-19)  between  the  two  fonns  of  proclaiming  the 
coming  crisis — the  breaking  forth  of  God's  Kingdom  in  manifest 
power — without  regarrl  to  dificrence  in  the  form  of  their  message, 
save  as  involved  in  the  difference  in  the  Messengers  themselves  in 


ST.  MARK  1.  4-     XMk  83 

point  of  Divine  authority  and  power  (vv.  7-8).  Yet  the  difference 
of  accent  and  suggestion,  even  when  '  Repentance,'  as  the  con- 
dition of  readiness  for  the  Kingdom,  was  on  tiie  lips  of  both,  was 
very  real  (witness  their  attitudes  to  '  fasting  '  in  Mark  ii.  18  f.,  and 
cf.  Matt.  xi.  18  f.),  and  most  significant  of  the  advance  from  the 
Old  to  the  New  form  of  '  the  Covenant '  between  God  and  His 
People.     This  point  is  finely  caught  in  Longfellow's  hymn  : 

A  voice  by  Jordan's  shore, 
A  summons  stern  and  clear  : 

Repent  !  be  just,   and  sin   no  more  ! 
God's  Judgement  draweth  near  ! 

A  voice  by  Galilee, 
A  holier  voice  I  hear  : 

Love  God,  tliy  neighbour  love  !  for  see, 
God's  Mercy  draweth  near. 
It  is  instructive  to  compare  with  the  whole  verse,  and  the  next 
two,  the  description  of  John  by  Josephus,  the  Jew,  in  a  passage 
which  shows  marks  of  anti-Christian  polemic  {Aniiqitiiies,  xviii. 
V.  2).  John,  he  says,  was  '  a  good  man  who  exhorted  the  Jews 
to  practice  virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness  towards  one  another 
and  piety  towards  God,  and  to  come  to  baptism  {baptismos).  For 
the  dipping  {baptists)  in  question  would  be  acceptable  to  God  on  the 
understanding  that  they  used  it,  not  by  way  of  apology  ('excuse') 
for  such  and  such  sins,  but  of  bodily  purification,  provided 
that  the  soul  also  had  been  already  cleansed  beforehand  by 
righteousness.'  People  flocked  to  him  in  crowds,  were  stirred  by 
his  addresses,  and  seemed  willing  to  follow  him  in  all  things. 
Hence  Herod  Antipas,  fearing  a  popular  uprising  (.i.e.  of  the 
Zealot  sort,  actuated  by  a  patriotic  religious  motive),  seized  John, 
sent  him  in  chains  to  the  fortress  of  Machaerus,  and  had  him  put 
to  death  there.  All  this  (see  L  Abrahams,  Studies  in  Pliarisaism 
and  tlie  Gospels,  30  ff.,  for  its  genuineness  in  the  text  of  Josephus) 
confirms  what  we  learn  from  Mark  and  the  other  Gospels,  save 
that  Josephus  uses  the  occasion  to  tilt  against  what  he  takes  to  be 
the  Christian  theory  of  baptism  in  his  own  daj'. 

It  was  a  boldly  prophetic  step  which  John  took,  when  he 
applied  to  the  Jewish  people  itself,  a  people  already  '  holy  '  by 
covenant  with  God,  a  radical  '  baptism '  of  this  sort.  For  it  im- 
plied their  sinful  state  as  a  people,  a  state  which,  unless  repented 
of  and  amended,  would  mean  that  God's  coming  to  his  people 
would  be  in  '  wrath'  (Matt.  iii.  7  ;  Luke  iii.  7')  and  Condemnation, 
not  Peace  and  Salvation.  Nor  was  it  strange  that  the  Pharisees 
as  a  class  (in  spite  of  the  '  many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  ' 
whom  Matt.  iii.  7  describes  as  coming  to  John's  baptism),  feeling 
how  it  implied  their  moral  uncleanness  too,  were  inclined  to  reject 
John's  mission  and  question  his  authority  as  a  prophet  (cf.  Mark 
xi.  29  {.).    Thus  '  What  think  ye  of  John  ? '  was,  according  to  Jesus 


84  ST.  MARK   1.  5.     X^k 

there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  country  of  Judfea,  and 
all  they  of  Jerusalem  j  and  they  were  baptized  of  him  in 

himself,  a  test  question  for  men's  attitude  towards  the  coming 
Kingdom  of  God,  even  before  there  came  the  3  et  more  searching 
and  final  test,  'What  think  ye  of  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  and  his 
claim  to  Divine  authority  for  his  mission  ? '  John's  Message  was, 
as  a  call  for  moral  realiti',  of  a  piece  with  that  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Doubtless  John  saw  his  warrant  for  a  step  involving  such  need 
of  spiritual  renewal  in  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27  :  '  I  will  sprinkle  pure 
water  upon  J'ou,  and  ye  shall  be  clean.  ...  A  new  heart  also  will 
I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  .  .  .  and  cause 
you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgements  and 
do  them.'  How  far  John  thought  that  Jehovah  fulfilled  the  first 
part  of  such  words,  then  and  there,  for  those  who  accepted  his 
baptism  with  true  penitence  of  heart— so  that  it  resulted  in  '  for- 
giveness of  sins'  in  His  sight — is  not  easy  to  say:  But  it  is 
certain  that  falfilment  of  the  second  part  of  the  promise,  'the  new 
spirit '  in  a  morally  renewed  heart,  was  in  his  eyes  reserved  as  the 
prerogative  of  a  Greater  Medium  of  the  Divine  "Will  and  power 
than  himself  (of.  vv.  7-8).  Such  '  forgiveness  of  sins  '  as  he  could 
hold  out  was  very  provisional,  not  complete  and  final  in  its  efficac}'. 

5.  And  there  went  otit  unto  him  all  the  country  of  Judcsa, 
and  all  they  of  Jerusalem.  Mark's  picture  of  the  man  and  his 
work  is  less  complete  than  Matthew's  or  Luke's.  But  it  is  very 
graphic,  and  it  has  some  points  of  its  own.  This  is  due  probably 
not  only  to  Mark's  connexion  with  Peter,  but  also  to  the  fact  that 
he  himself  would  have  his  own  early  memories  of  John's  ministry 
to  draw  on.  He  fixes  attention  on  the  effect  of  that  ministry  as 
resulting  in  a  '  mass'  movement,  embracing  all  Judaea  in  the  wide 
sense  in  which  the  Romans  also  used  it,  and  not  only  the  region 
adjacent  to  the  capital.  The  verbs  in  tiie  verse  imply  continued 
action,  what  we  call  a  •  movement.'  The  scene  of  his  activity 
may  from  time  to  time  liave  been  at  different  fords  of  the  Jordan. 
were  baptized.  The  term  in  Greek  was  used  in  a  variet}'  of 
applications.  It  meant  literally  to  dip  in  or  binder  water  (the  verb 
is  used  in  the  LXX  of  2  Kings  v.  14  of  Naaman),  to  immerse^  but 
also  to  lave,  wash,  etc.  The  usual  form  of  baptism  in  ancient 
times  and  in  Eastern  countries  was  by  immersion.  As  to  its 
religious  significance,  it  is  noteworthy  that  it  was  part  of  the 
rites  by  which  proselytes  from  outside  Judaism  were  admitted  to 
the  corporate  blessings  of  tlie  Covenant  People.  Here  it  expressed 
primarily  the  idea  of  purification  from  the  state  of  '  uncleanness  ' 
which  attaclied  to  all  '  Gentiles '  as  such,  as  belonging  to  an  '  un- 
sanctified'  order  of  social  life,  i.e.  without  definite  covenant 
relations  to  the  God  of  Israel. 


ST.  MARK  1.  6.     XMk  85 

the  river  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.     And  John  was  6 
clothed  with  camel's  hair,   and  had  a   leathern  girdle 
about  his  loins,  and  did  eat  locusts  and  wild  honey. 

confessing'  their  sins.  The  verb  is  a  strong  one,  '  openly 
confessing,'  and  expresses  the  publicity  of  the  act.  It  was  not 
a  private  confession  to  John  himself. 

6.  And  John  was  clothed  with  camel's  hair.  Everything 
about  John  was  in  keeping  with  his  character,  as  himself  a  reli- 
gious penitent,  who  had  retired  into  solitude  from  what  he  felt  to 
be  a  '  sinful  and  perverse  generation,'  such  as  Mai.  iv.  contem- 
plates. Thus  in  outward  habit  he  was  like  to  Elijah,  as  in  the 
seriousness  of  the  call  to  repentance  which  he  addressed  to  his 
people.  His  coarse  tunic,  of  a  rough  cloth  woven  of  camel's  hair, 
was  the  sort  of  garment  worn  b}'  the  prophets  of  old  (Zech. 
xiii.  4),  and  by  Elijah  in  particular  (2  Kings  i.  8). 

and  had  a  leathern  g-irdle  ahout  his  loins.  The  girdle 
was  needed  to  keep  the  loose  robe  together,  for  purposes  of  toil 
or  rapid  movement.  John's  was  of  skin,  like  the  girdle  of  rough 
untanned  leather  which  is  still  worn  by  the  Bedouin,  the  poor 
labourer,  and  the  dei'vish. 

and  did  eat  locusts  and  wild  honey.  His  food  was  onl}- 
what  the  desert  could  provide.  Locusts  are  the  creatures  well 
known  for  their  destructive  work  on  all  herbage  and  leafage. 
The  species  of  locust  allowed  by  the  law  to  be  eaten  are  given  in 
Lev.  xi.  22.  They  are  still  eaten  by  the  Bedouin  Arabs  and  the 
poorer  classes.  The  '  honey  '  was  doubtless  wild  bee-honey,  not 
the  sweet  gum  that  exudes  from  certain  trees,  like  the  palm  and 
the  fig,  and  for  this  reason  also  called  '  wild  honey '  by  the 
ancients  (Me/ s/'/ye^/A-^).  'The  innumerable  fissures  and  clefts  of 
the  limestone  rocks  which  everywhere  flank  the  valleys.'  says 
Dr.  Tristram,  '  afford  in  their  recesses  secure  shelter  for  any 
number  of  swarms  of  wild  bees  ;  and  many  of  the  Bedouin,  par- 
ticularly about  the  wilderness  of  Judsea,  obtain  their  subsistence 
by  bee-hunting,  bringing  into  Jerusalem  jars  of  that  wild  honey 
on  which  John  the  Baptist  fed  in  the  wilderness  '  \  The  Land  of 
Israel,  p.  88).  In  the  O.T.  it  is  described  as  found  in  the  hollows 
of  rocks  (Deut.  xxxii.  13),  or  in  trees,  as  in  the  famous  case  of 
Jonathan  (i  Sam.  xiv.  25-27). 

It  is  interesting,  as  showing  how  purely  O.T.  and  prophet-like 
a  tj'pe  John  really  was,  to  compare  him  with  an  ascetic  of  the 
newer  or  less  Hebraic  sort,  who  shared  the  non-Jewish  scruple 
against  any  animal  food  (on  account  of  the  'soul'  in  things 
animate)  of  which  Essenes  were  the  chief  Jewish  example.  John 
has  sometimes  been  falselj'  classed  with  the  Essenes,  though  they 
lived  essentially  in  select  communities,  for  tl.e  cultivation  of  their 


86  ST.  MARK  1.  7.    X^k 

7  And  he  preached,  saying,  There  cometh  after  me  he 
that  is  mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am 


special  ideal  of  a  '  purity  '  more  exacting  even  than  that  of  the 
Pharisees.  But  the  nearest  known  analogj'  to  his  solitary  mode 
of  life  is  that  of  Banus,  a  contemporarj'  of  John's,  with  whom 
Josephus  lived  for  three  j^ears  as  his  admiring  disciple,  when  as 
a  youth  lie  made  experiment  of  the  respective  merits  of  the  chief 
Jewish  types  of  piet3' — Pharisaism,  Sadducaism,  Essenism.  This 
anchorite  wore  garments  made  of  bark  or  leaves,  and  his  food 
was  the  wild  produce  of  the  earth — both  features  being  illustrative 
of  a  feeling  of  the  superior  '  purity  '  of  the  vegetable  world  to  the 
animal  for  human  use  :  moreover  he  bathed  frequently,  day  and 
night,  by  way  of  purification.  That  is,  his  most  distinctive  ways 
and  the  mode  of  thought  underl3'ing  them  were  not  shared  by 
John  ;  while  he  lacked  the  latter's  sense  of  a  Divine  mission  to 
Israel,  which  ranked  iiim  with  the  O.T.  prophets.  Indeed,  neither 
the  Essenes  nor  Banus  had  any  Messianic  hope  for  their  people  at 
large,  their  attitude  to  whom  was  one  of  pessimistic  separation, 
carried  further  than  by  even  the  strictest  Pharisees.  It  is  over 
against  such  a  background  of  current  reforms  in  religion  that  the 
essentially  prophetic  Hebraism  of  John's  outlook  and  mission 
stands  out  most  impressively,  and  at  the  same  time  its  continuity 
with  those  of  Jesus,  the  prophet  of  Nazareth. 

7.  Aud  he  preached,  saying-,  There  cometh  after  me  he 
that  is  m.ightier  than  I.  It  is  again  the  preaching  or  proclaiming, 
not  the  baptizing,  that  Mark  signalizes  in  John  ;  and  the  essence 
of  his  proclamation  is  the  approach  of  Another  greater  than  him- 
self It  is  not  here  said  in  what  the  greater  might  of  this  One 
consists  ;  but  the  context  suggests  that  it  was  in  the  superiority 
of  the  baptism  with  which  he  was  to  baptize.  The  tense  of  the 
verb  implies,  too,  that  the  announcement  recorded  here  was  not 
one  that  John  made  on  a  single  occasion,  but  one  that  he  con- 
tinued to  make  as  he  preached. 

the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  X  am  not  worthy  (or,  sufficient) 
to  stoop  down  and  unloose.  '  Latchet '  =  '  lace.'  The  sandal, 
which  covered  only  the  sole,  was  fastened  by  a  thong  or  strap. 
It  was  the  duty  of  slaves  of  the  lowest  rank  to  carry  i  Matt.  iii.  ii), 
fetch,  and  remove  the  master's  sandals.  To  untie  the  thong  was, 
if  possible,  a  still  more  servile  duty  fcf.  John  xiii.  4).  Notice  the 
graphic  turn  given  to  Mark's  statement  by  the  introduction  of 
the  act  of  '  stooping  '  in  order  to  do  the  untying :  so  little  was  the 
Forerunner,  in  comparison  with  the  Coming  One.  He  held  him- 
self unfit  even  to  do  the  most  menial  service  to  that  greater 
One. 


ST.  MARK  1.  8.     XMk  87 

not  '^  worthy  to  stoop   down  and   unloose.     I    baptized  8 
you  ^with  water-   but  he  shall  baptize  you  ^with  the 
cHoly  Ghost. 


c 


Gr.  sufficient  *"  Or,  in 

Or,  Holy  Spirit :  and  so  throug^hout  this  book. 


8.  I  baptized  you  with  water ;  but  lie  shall  baptize  you 
with  (the)  Holy  Ghost.  As  with  the  Prophet,  so  with  the 
religious  rite  he  administered  as  prophetic  symbol.  His  baptism 
dealt  with  water,  speaking  of  the  need  of  repentance  and  serving 
as  the  sign  of  an  inward  change  ;  the  Other's  with  the  reality 
effecting  spiritual  change  (_cf,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25-27).  '  He  shall 
drench  (cf.  Joel  ii.  28)  with  (or  in)  Holy  Spirit,'  and  so  reach  the 
inner  life  and  touch  the  springs  of  thought  and  action  with  purity 
and  power.  Speaking  I'rom  the  O.T.  standpoint,  John  could  not 
mean  by  '  Holy  Spirit'  all  ihat  we  understand  by  that  great  term. 
In  the  O.T.  'spirit  of  God,'  '  the  spirit  of  the  Lord,'  the  'spirit  of 
holiness,'  is  the  power  or  energy  of  God  that  appears  as  the  life- 
giving  principle  of  the  world,  the  source  of  all  special  gifts— of 
soldier,  artificer,  king,  prophet.  In  its  higher  aspects,  especially 
in  the  poetical  and  prophetical  books,  and  with  a  nearer  approach 
to  Divine  personal  action,  it  is  presented  as  the  guide  and  helper 
of  men,  the  inspiration  of  their  life, and  specifically  the  endowment 
of  Messiah  as  God's  Anointed  (cf.  Gen.  i.  2  ;  Exod.  xxxi.  3  ; 
Judges  iii.  10;  Job  xxvi.  13,  xxxiii.  4;  Ps.  li.  10  f.,  civ.  30;  Isa. 
xi.  2,  xlii.  I,  Ixi.  21,  Ixiii.  10;  Mic.  iii.  8).  Prophecy  spoke  too 
of  an  effusion  of  the  Spirit  '  upon  all  flesh  '  as  one  of  the  features 
of  the  Messianic  age  (Isa.  xliv.  3  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25;  Joel  ii.  28). 
Thus  '  He  shall  baptize  you  with  Holy  Spirit '  (without  the  article 
=  *holy  inspiration  '"i,  refers  to  an  overwhelming  spiritual  experi- 
ence, due  to  God's  direct  action  on  the  soul,  an  influence  which  it 
is  the  special  prerogative  of  the  Coming  One  to  wield  :  and  in 
this  his  superior  might  chiefly  consists.  And  so  we  pass  naturally 
to  the  next  episode  in  ]\Iark's  narrative. 

i.  9-11.  The  baptism  of  Jesus  the  Christ  (Matt.  iii.  13-17; 
Luke  iii.  21,  22). 

Before  Jesus  can  fulfil  John's  prophecy  touching  the  coming 
spiritual  Baptizer  of  God's  people,  he  must  himself  first  receive 
a  like  baptism  of  the  Spirit  in  a  signal  manner  and  degree,  and  so 
become  God's  Spirit-Anointed  (Messiah)  or  Chosen  One,  His 
Beloved  Son.  This  is  the  prime  meaning  of  the  incident  in  Mark 
(10  f.).  It  signifies  Jesus'  definite  vocation  to  his  Messianic 
ministry,  his  personal  inauguration.  In  the  same  act,  then,  the 
ministry  of  John  had  its  culmination.     It  was  an  event  of  such 


88  ST.  MARK  1.  9.     X^k 

9      And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  GaUlee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  *in 

*  Gr.  inio 

moment  that  all  the  evangelists  report  it,  Matthew  at  most  length. 
Mark's  account  is  brief,  but  vivid  and  circumstantial. 

9.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  (that)  Jestis  came  :  a 
sentence  thoroughly  in  the  manner  of  the  current  speech  of  the 
Jews,  viz,  Aramaic,  a  dialect  akin  to  the  then  largely  disused 
Hebrew,  and  the  mother  tongue  of  Peter,  as  of  Jesus. 

in  those  days:  i.e.  when  John  was  announcing  the  advent 
of  the  Messiah  and  by  baptism  consecrating  God's  people  to  the 
Messianic  Kingdom,  Luke  ( iii.  23)  tells  us  that  Jesus  'when  he 
Oegan  (his  Gospel  Ministry,  cf.  Mk.  i.  i)  was  about  thirty  j-ears  of 
age.'  That  was  the  age  appointed  under  the  Law  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  ministry  of  every  Levite  who  '  came  to  do  the  work 
of  service'  (Num.  iv,  43). 

Nazareth  of  Galilee.  Mark's  plan  does  not  require  him  to 
go  behind  Jesus'  public  ministry  to  his  birth  and  early  life, 
recorded  by  Luke  in  particular.  Nazareth,  now  known  among 
the  Arabs  as  en-Nasim,  seems  never  to  have  risen  to  any  impor- 
tance, and  it  is  not  mentioned  either  in  the  O.T.  or  in  Josephus. 
It  was  planted  on  one  of  the  limestone  hills  of  the  Lebanon, 
some  1,600  feet  high,  where  the  range  dips  down  into  the  Plain 
of  Esdraelon.  It  occupied  a  secluded  position,  hidden  in  the 
basin  of  the  hills,  only  just  off  tlie  main  lines  of  traffic,  and  at  no 
great  distance  from  Capernaum,  Tiberias,  and  other  places  of  note. 
It  was  not  so  remote  as  to  cut  its  inhabitants  off  from  the  strong, 
active,  varied  life  of  Northern  Palestine.  Travellers  tell  us  of  the 
superb  panorama  that  opens  out  to  the  eye  from  the  heights  about 
it  and  above  it.     See  G.  A.  Smith,  Hist.  Gcogr.  432  ff. 

baptized in   Jordan  :    ///.    "  dipped  into    Jordan,'    a 

phrase  pointing  to  immersion  as  the  mode.  The  precise  locality 
of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  is  much  debated.  The  traditions  of  the 
Latin  and  Greek  churches  agree  in  placing  it  not  far  from  Jericho, 
a  likely  enough  region  ;  but  they  differ  otherwise.  The  fourth 
Gospel  (i.  28)  places  it  near  Bethany  bej'ond  Jordan.  In  any 
case  it  might  be  about  a  day's  journey  from  Nazareth  ;  and  Jesus' 
route  would  lie  along  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  as  far  as  Bethshan, 
and  then  down  the  Jordan  valley. 

Here  no  confession  of  sins,  as  in  verse  5,  is  either  mentioned 
or  implied.  The  baptism  was  on  the  national  or  corporate  basis 
characteristic  of  Hebrew  religious  thought,  like  that  of  ancient 
religion  generally:  cf.  Isa.  vi.  5  'Woe  is  me!  because  I  am  a 
man  of  unclean  lips,  and  I  (iivell  in  the  midst  of  a  people  of  nnclcon 
lips?     That  the  baptism  of  John  was  in  idea  on  a  corporate  basis, 


ST.  MARK  1.  9.     XMk  89 

that  of  a  people  prepared  by  separation  from  sin  for  the  Messianic 
presence  of  God  in  judgement,  is  implied  liy  Cheyne  (Encycl. 
Biblica,  col.  2499),  when  he  sajs  it  was  '  to  give  '  the  baptized, 
^  as  representatives  of  a  regenerate  people,  the  final  participation  [by 
'an  outward  symbol  ']  which  attested  the  reality  of  their  inward 
change.' 

It  was  enough,  then,  that  Jesus  \\as  a  member  of  the  people, 
to  warrant  his  participation  in  the  baptism  prescribed  b^-  God's 
prophet  for  it  as  a  religious  unit,  without  any  inference  as  to  his 
personal  consciousness  of  sin  being  needful  in  order  to  explain 
his  act.  His  sense  of  solidarity  with  God's  people  is  to  be 
measured  only  by  his  love  or  sj'mpathy  ;  and  he  who  would 
'fulfil  all  righteousness,' i.e.  every  Divine  ordinance  lor  God's 
people  preparatory  to  the  coming  Kingdom,  and  so  take  his  due 
part  in  furthering  it,  could  not  hold  aloof  from  the  symbolic  rite 
which  denoted  a  dutiful  attitude  to  God's  call  and  a  recognition  of 
the  Baptist  as  the  Divinely  sent  Forerunner  of  the  Kingdom. 

But  Christ's  submission  to  John's  baptism  came  in  time  to  be 
discussed  in  relation  to  his  sinlessness,  though  Mark  gives  no  hint 
that  he  felt  it  need  do  so.  How,  it  was  asked,  could  one  who  had 
no  personal  consciousness  of  sin  seek  '  a  baptism  of  repentance  '  ? 
How  could  one  who  had  no  confession  of  sin  to  make  approach  an 
ordinance  usually'  marked  by  open  confession  of  sin,  with  a  view 
to  remission  of  sins  ?  It  would  be  difficult  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion if  John's  baptism  related  only  to  confession  and  forgiveness 
of  sin.  But  in  fact  it  looked  beyond  those  to  the  Kingdom  of 
God  ;  and  its  ultimate  significance  lay  in  preparation  for  that  (see 
note  on  Matt.  iii.  14-15).  That  is  all  that  Mark  here  seems  to 
have  in  view.  Christ  came  to  establish  that  Kingdom  among 
men  ;  and  this  ordinance  was  the  overt  way  of  definite  dedication 
of  a  prepared  and  expectant  Israel  to  the  coming  Kingdom.  His 
baptism  was  the  act  by  which  he  separated  himself  from  an  Israel 
unready  for  God's  nearer  presence,  and  ranked  himself  with  the 
prepared.  This,  no  doubt,  meant  to  him  the  consecration  of  him- 
self to  an  ever-deepening  obedience,  an  intenser  devotion,  a 
pledged  setting  aside  of  all  that  could  compete  with  his  Father's 
will  or  the  interests  of  His  Kingdom.  But  beyond  this  no 
thought,  such  as  that  of  any  contrast  between  himself  and  his 
fellows  in  this  act  of  obedience  to  a  Divine  Call  to  all  Israel,  in 
point  of  personal  worthiness,  need  have  occurred  to  him.  Com- 
plete absorption  in  the  positive  aspect  of  the  Call  altogether  suits 
his  child-like  spirit.  This  is  what  is  implied  by  the  account  in 
Matt.  iii.  15.  On  the  other  hand,  openly  to  dissociate  himself, 
for  private,  self-conscious  reasons,  from  those  eagerly  welcoming 
His  Father's  coming  Reign,  would  have  been  to  him  impossible. 

How  easy  it  was  for  Christian  reflexion  to  go  astray  here  and 
miss  the  essential  nature  of  the  holiness  of  Jesus,  in  his  simple 


9©  ST.  MARK  1.  lo.     XMk 

lo  the  Jordan.     And   straightway  coming  up   out   of  the 
water,  he  saw  the  heavens  rent  asunder,  and  the  Spirit 


preoccupation  with  the  Father's  Kingdom,  is  ilkistrated  by  the 
account  of  the  matter  in  a  secondary  gospel,  that  'According  to 
the  Hebrews,'  current  among  certain  earlj'  Nazaraean  or  Jewish- 
Christian  circles  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  'Behold  the  Lord's 
mother  and  brethren  began  to  say  to  iiim,  'John  the  Baptist 
baptizeth  ("or  remission  of  sins  :  let  us  go  and  be  baptized  by  him.' 
But  he  said  to  them,  '  Wherein  have  I  sinned  that  I  should  go  and 
be  baptized  by  him  ?  Except  perchance  this  very  thing  that  I  have 
said  is  ignorance  '  (i.  e.  a  sin  of  ignorance,  an  unconscious  '  error' 
or  'hidden  fault,'  of  the  venial  sort  referred  to  in  Ps.  xix.  12  f.). 
That  is,  Jesus  went  up  to  John's  Baptism  only  at  the  suggestion 
of  his  family,  and  then  reluctantly,  after  protest  in  the  interests  of 
his  own  sinless  conscience.  How  deficient  in  ps3'choIogical  in- 
sight it  all  is,  and  how  its  artificiality  jars  on  our  sense  of  what 
Jesus'  sinlessness  was  really  like  ! 

10.  And  straigrlitway  coming'  up  ont  of  the  water:  i.e.  'in 
the  moment  of  coming  up.'  His  baptism  over,  Jesus  was  in  the 
act  of  ascending  out  of  the  stream,  when  he  had  the  experiences 
here  recorded.     For  'straightway  '  see  v.  18. 

he  saw  the  heavens  rent  asunder :  or  better,  '  in  the  act  of 
rending'  or  'being  torn  asunder.'  The  expression  is  a  striking 
one,  being  used  of  the  rending  or  tearing  of  a  piece  of  old  cloth 
(Luke  V.  36  ,  the  breaking  of  a  net  (John  xxi.  11 ),  the  rending  of 
the  veil  of  the  temple  (Luke  xxiii.  45),  and  actually  of  'the 
heavens'  in  Isa.  Ixiv.  i.  Compare  the  opening  of  the  heavens  in 
the  case  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  56)  and  in  Peter's  trance  (Acts 
X.  11). 

To  Jewish  thought  there  were  several  '  heavens,'  one  above 
another,  of  which  our  visible  '  heaven  '  was  the  lowest,  while  God 
was  concei\'cd  as  throned  in  the  highest,  'the  heaven  of  Heavens.' 

It  is  vital  to  Mark's  meaning  to  note  that  all  in  10  f.  depends  on 
'  he  saw.'  That  is,  all  is  given  as  seen  and  heard  by  Jesus  himself, 
and  so /or  /its  assurance  and  preparation  for  his  Messianic  vocation, 
just  about  to  begin  in  conscious  form.  This  rules  out  cert;iin 
readings  derived  from  other  sources,  where  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  and  the  Voice  are  treated  as  external  events,  witnessed  by 
John  at  least  (so  Luke  in  effect,  and  Matt,  more  clearly,  '  This  is 
my  beloved  Son,'  as  also  the  Nazaraean  '  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews'),  and  so  as  formally  and  publicly  installing  Jesus  as 
Messiah.  This  is  made  yet  clearer  in  the  other  and  later  Jewish- 
Christian  or  'Ebionite'  gospel,  'I  this  day  have  begotten  thee,' 
i.e.  as  Messianic  King,  in  allusion  to  Ps.  ii.  7.  The  point  in  the 
tradition    as  found  in   Mark  is  not  this  ;  it  aims  at  shewing  how 


ST.  MARK  1.  II.     XMk  91 

as  a  dove  descending  ^  upon  him  :   and  a  voice  came  u 

*  unto,  or  into,  in  our  oldest  authorities. 

Jesus  himself  attained  that  clear  and  assured  consciousness  of 
unique  filial  relation  to  God  which  was  the  real  basis  of  his 
Messianic  consciousness  from  first  to  last.  From  this  same  stand- 
point it  is  impossible  to  take  the  true  Greek  reading  eis  (after 
'descending'),  which  can  mean  either  'unto'  or  'into,'  in  the 
latter  sense  ;  for  it  would  not  suit  '  he  saw.'  Nor  does  this 
description  of  the  Spirit's  descent,  as  seen  through  Jesus'  eyes 
favour  the  reading  of  its  aim  as  the  conferment  on  him  of  fresh 
spiritual  qualities,  as  if  in  fulfilment  of  Isa.  xi.  2  (an  idea  developed 
in  the  Nazaraean  gospel)  ;  rather  it  symbolizes  the  fact  that  com- 
munion between  heaven  and  earth  was  opened  up  with  new 
immediacy  in  his  case,  as  chosen  first  from  among  God's  People 
for  this  special  Messianic  grace  (cf  John  i.  51).  The  new  thing 
for  him,  then,  which  this  sensible  Anointing  with  the  Spirit  con- 
ferred, was  a  definite  consciousness  of  his  vocation  as  Messiah, 
the  representative  Head  of  the  new  Israel,  through  which  it  was 
to  receive  its  full  Divine  inheritance  ;  and  ivith  this  iveni,  as  a 
natural  consequence,  a  fresh  fulness  of  Divine  or  supernormal 
'power'  for  the  efiecting  of  his  special  vocation  of  bringing  in 
God's  Kingdom.  Thus,  in  fact,  as  Peter  puts  it  in  Acts  x.  38,  'God 
anointed  him  with  holy  .Spirit  and  with  power,'  for  doing  deeds 
of  beneficence  indicative  that  the  evil  powers  of  the  old  Age  or 
order  were  in  principle  annulled;  so  that  thereby  'Jesus  of 
Nazareth '  was  '  approved  of  God '  unto  Israel  '  by  powers  and 
wonders  and  signs  which  God  did  by  him'  (Acts  ii.  22).  The 
overt  effect,  then,  of  the  Spirit's  descent  and  Unction  of  Jesus,  as 
Messiah,  was  that  he  went  forth  '  full  of  holy  Spirit '  (Luke  iv.  i), 
in  a  sense  relative  to  the  requirements  of  his  new  mission,  which 
was  to  end  in  his  '  baptizing  '  others  'with  hol^-  Spirit'  (v.  8), 

and  the  Spirit  as  a  dove  descending'  upon  him.  We  may 
best  understand  this  picturesque  account  of  what  Jesus  saw  by 
comparison  with  his  words  on  a  somewhat  similar  occasion,  re- 
corded in  Luke  x.  18.  There,  on  the  return  of  the  Seventy  from 
successful  work  for  the  Kingdom,  Jesus  exclaims  '  I  beheld  Satan 
fallen  as  lightning  from  Heaven'  (i.e.  that  one  of  the  'heavens  ' 
in  which  Satan  was  conceived  to  dwell  and  rule  ss  'prince  of  this 
world,'  so  far  as  it  was  alienated  from  God,  cf.  Matt.  iv.  8).  Such 
language  cannot  there  be  meant  literally  :  nor  should  it  be  here 
(as  distinct  from  Luke  iii.  22).  The  symbolism  is  meant  to  define 
the  character  of  the  Spirit's  special  relation  to  Jesus,  and  so  bears 
on  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  incident. 

The  dove  like  form,  which  in  this  vision  symbolized  the  Spirit, 
connects  itself  best  with  the  Dove  which  returned  to  Noah  with 
the  message  of  peace  and  hope  for  the  new  order  emerging  out  of 


92  ST.  MARK  1.  II.     XMt 

out  of  the  heavens,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee 
I  am  well  pleased. 

the  waters  that  had  buried  the  old,  with  all  its  ill-deeds  (compare 
'  descends  the  Dove  of  peace  '  in  the  familiar  hymn).  The  dove 
was  a  most  natural  symbol  of  gentleness  (cf.  '  harmless  as  doves,' 
Matt.  X.  i6).  The  Rabbis  came  to  see  in  the  fostering  action  of 
the  '  Spirit  of  God,'  '  brooding  '  at  creation  over  the  waste  of  waters 
like  a  bird  over  its  nestlings,  a  comparison  to  the  gentle  dove  in 
particular  (I.  Abrahams,  Sludies,  ch.  v).  The  Targum,  or  Aramaic 
paraphrase  reflecting  Rabbinic  exposition  in  the  public  reading  of 
Scripture,  and  often  going  back  to  Christ's  day,  sees  in  the  turtle- 
dove of  tlie  Song  of  Songs  ii.  8,  with  its  low,  cooing  voice,  a 
symbol  of  the  '  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Salvation'  in  relation 
to  Israel  ;  and  Philo,  the  Alexandrine  Jew,  writing  just  about 
Jesus'  day,  sees  in  the  dove  (more  strictly  the  turtle-dove)  a  tj^pe 
of  Divine  Wisdom.  Finally  this  gracious  aspect  of  God,  as  fitly 
symbolized  by  the  dove,  is  aptly  illustrated  by  the  saying  in  the 
tract  Berachoth  (fol.  3a  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud',  'I  heard  a 
Bath-Qol  (Divine  Voice)  moaning  as  a  dove  and  saying,  '  Woe  to 
the  Children  through  whose  iniquities  I  laid  waste  My  Temple.' 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  materials  for  an  understanding  of  this 
figurate  representation  of  the  Divine  attitude  towards  Jesus,  in 
sending  His  Spirit  in  special  or  Messianic  form  and  fulness  of 
power,  as  to  One  already  perfectly  filial,  uniquely  His  Son  in 
personal  character,  yet  needing  an  authoritative  intimation  of  the 
Mission  to  which  he  was  being  now  called,  and  for  which  he  must 
ever  count  on  the  empowering  support  of  his  heavenly  Father. 
A  further  illustration  of  the  BatliQol  (lit.  '  Daughter- voice '  of 
God),  or  utterance  of  God  made  audible  to  man,  is  afforded  by  the 
Rabbinic  tradition  touching  Hillel  (cf.  op.  cit.  p.  48).  'There  came 
forth  a  Bath-Qol  and  said  :  There  is  among  3fOU  a  certain  man 
worthy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  generation  is  not  worthy 
thereof.' 

That  any  of  the  experiences  just  described  were  shared  with 
Jesus  by  any  one,  even  John,  is  not  hinted  or  seemingly  contem- 
plated by  Mark  (cf.  Additional  Note  in  the  Edition  of  Matthew, 
p.  97).  This  and  certain  other  ideas  often  associated  in  our  minds 
with  the  baptism  are  due  to  other  sources,  especially  tiic  other 
Gospels.  But  they  must  not  be  allowed  to  enter  in  unconsciously 
and  change  the  perspective  of  Mark's  picture  of  Jesus  the  Christ 
and  his  Ministry  ;  else  we  shall  lose  something  of  its  special 
character  and  consistency,  as  the  first  and  simplest  presentation 
of  the  broad  outlines  of  '  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ'  as  told  among 
men  by  his  personal  companions,  and  Peter  in  particular. 

11.  and  a  voice  came  {lit.  '  came  to  be ')  out  of  the  heavens, 
Thou  art  my  'beloved  Son.     Here  we  have  the  Bath-Qol  (see 


ST.  MARK  1.  ir.     XMk  c>3 

last  note  and  that  on  Matt.  iii.  17)  in  terms  of  Isa.  xlii.  i  (applied 
to  Israel)  rather  than  Ps.  ii.  7,  which  has  only  'Thou  art  my  son.' 
In  the  version  given  in  Matt.  xii.  18,  Isa.  xlii.  i  runs  as  follows : 
'Behold,  my  servant  (or  'child'),  v^hom  I  chose,  my  beloved,  in 
whom  my  soul  is  well-pleased  :  I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon  him.' 
it  puts  into  articulate  words  the  meaning  of  that  which  was  already 
implied  in  the  symbolism  of  the  eye,  viz.  Divine  testimony  to  the 
unique  or  Messianic  sonship  of  Jesus.  This  suggests  that  '  Son  ' 
(used  in  Ps.  li.  7)  here  means  the  same  as  '  child'  in  the  LXX  of 
Isa.  xlii.  I,  see  Acts  iii.  13,  26,  iv.  27.  The  term  'beloved'  (cf. 
Gen.  xxii.  2;  Isa,  xlii.  i),  which  in  the  LXX  represents  the  same 
Hebrew  word  as  is  also  rendered  'chosen'  or  '  only  begotten ' 
(see  below),  is  applied  in  the  Gospels  (so  ix.  7,  cf.  xii.  6)  to  JesHS 
as  God's  son  in  a  peculiar  sense,  viz.  as  in  special  or  unique 
relations  to  God  as  father  (cf.  '  my  Son,  my  chosen,'  Luke  ix.  35). 
It  is  not  found  in  John's  Gospel,  but  is  almost  equivalent  to '  only- 
begotten  '  (or  rather  '  sole  in  kind,'  and  so  uniquely  loved),  which  is 
the  phrase  there.  It  occurs  as  a  title  of  Messiah  (doubtless  after 
Isa.  xlii.  i)  in  the  non-canonical  Jewish  books,  such  as  the  Testa- 
ments of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (Benj.  xi),  and  the  Targum  on 
Isa.  xlii.  I  (see  note  in  R.  H.  Charles'  Ascension  0/ Isaiah,  i.  4). 

Here,  then,  the  address  'my  beloved  Son' — or  rather  (as  in 
Isa.  xlii)  '  My  son,  the  Beloved  '—designates  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
yet  not  in  respect  of  office  so  much  as  of  peculiar  relation  to  God. 
The  former  is  rooted  in  and  springs  out  of  the  latter  by  inherent 
affinity,  according  to  the  true  conception  of  Messiah,'  viz.,  as  the 
Well-beloved  and  Anointed  of  Isa.  xl,  Ixvi,  rather  than  as  the 
Warrior  King  of  other  parts  of  the  O.  T.  This  Sonship  is  like  the 
office,  a  representative  one  ;  an  individual  Israelite  realizes  in 
his  own  personality  the  ideal  relation  of  his  whole  people,  Israel, 
to  its  God,  viz.  that  of  a  son  or  child,  as  Isa.  xl  ff.  states  it,  in 
keeping  with  Exod.  iv.  22  ;  Hosea  xi.  i.  (In  the  Alexandrine 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  of  the  early  first  cent.  a.  d.,  God's  saints 
collectively  are  called  '  sons  of  God,'  v.  5.)  Thus  in  promise 
and  potency  the  New  or  Messianic  Age  of  perfected  Covenant 
relations  has  already  begun  in  Messiah.  It  is  of  this  that  Jesus 
is  henceforth  conscious. 

in   tlies    I    am   well  pleased :    an  O.  T.   phrase  expressing 
Divine  satisfaction,  taken  also  from  Isa.  xlii.  i,  comp.  Ixii.  4. 

The  Baptist  had  largely  fulfilled  his  mission  :  the  human  Voice, 
calling  for  preparedness  for  God's  manifest  intervention  among 
His  people — His  expected  Kingdom — had  performed  its  ministry  ; 
and  chiefly  in  this,  that  through  him  the  most  truly  representative 
Israelite  of  all  those  awaiting  the  Divine  Presence,  in  new  intimacy 
and  fulness  of  power,  had  been  led  to  the  symbolic  rite  which 
marked  the  end  of  the  Old  Age  and  the  dawning  of  the  New.  In 
the  experience  of  this  Chosen  One  symbol  and  spiritual  reality 


94  ST.  MARK  1.  ir.    XMk 

fully  coincided.  As  Jesus  ascended  from  the  stream  which  had, 
as  it  were,  engulfed  in  his  person  the  old  past  order  or  world  in 
Israel's  life— carried  upon  his  soul,  in  vicarious  sympathy,  into  the 
waters  of  repentance  and  re-consecration —  God  himself  did  there 
and  then  intervene  with  sensible  tokens  (to  him)  that  the  separa- 
tion between  earth  and  heaven  was  at  length  annulled,  and  com- 
munion between  them  established  such  as  was  to  mark  the  Messianic 
Age.  For  to  Jesus'  rapt  gaze,  as  his  eyes  sought  the  heavens  in 
silent  prayer  (Luke  iii.  21)  of  adoration  and  trust  in  his  heavenly 
Father,  those  heavens  parted  asunder  and  a  dove-like  form  glided 
down  towards  himself,  the  token  of  Peace  and  Good-will  for  men, 
as  it  had  been  to  Noah  in  the  former  days,  when  a  new  earth  rose 
out  of  the  waters  that  had  purged  away  the  old  order  (cf.  i  Peter 
iii.  20  f.  foi  ilie  general  idea ).  Such  was  the  vision  which  greeted 
his  fresh  self-dedication  to  his  Father's  will  and  its  reign  "  on  earth 
as  it  is  in  heaven  '  :  and  following  on  it,  a  Voice,  also  coming,  as 
it  seemed,  from  the  heavenly  regions,  had  testified  at  this  moment  of 
spiritual  crisis  to  his  own  Sonship  and  the  heavenly  Father's  per- 
fect complacency  in  him.  Such  an  experience  must  needs  evoke 
a  very  tumult  of  feelings  and  thoughts,  overwhelming  in  their 
strength,  and  needing  time  for  reflexion  in  order  to  yield  up  their 
true  meaning,  according  to  his  Father's  purpose.  For  it  meant  a 
new  sense  of  special  filial  relation,  probably  also  of  Messianic 
Vocation,  which  he  now  knew,  perhaps  for  the  first  time  with  any 
assurance,  to  be  involved  in  it. 

Note  on  the  Baptism. 

The  above  seems  a  fair  interpretation  of  Mark's  narrative  as  it 
stands.  Yet  there  is  real  difficulty  in  attributing  full  historical 
value  to  its  details,  as  distinct  from  the  broad  fact  that  Jesus 
accepted  John's  Baptism  of  preparedness  for  the  Kingdom  in  his 
own  person,  and  that  this  solemn  act  of  self-dedication  led  in  a  soul 
such  as  his  to  a  great  spiritual  crisis.  For  knowledge  of  those 
details  could  have  reached  the  Apostles  only  through  Jesus  him- 
self. But  Origcn,  in  replying  to  Cclsus'  anti-Christian  criticism 
of  *  rent  heavens  '  and  a  visible  apparition  of  the  Divine  as  a  dove, 
argues  (i.  481  not  only  that  such  representations  arc  to  be  taken 
as  divinely  wrought  impressions  in  Jesus'  soul  (and  that  of  John), 
not  as  external  facts,  but  also  that  for  Jesus  to  relate  such  a  past 
episode  in  his  autobiography,  ere  the  disciples  began  to  share  his 
experiences,  would  be  alien  to  the  liabit  'ethos)  of  one  who  '  on  all 
occasions  avoided  talking  about  himself  (irfpiavToXoy'ia).  The  re- 
mark has  great  force  ;  for  the  seemingly  analogous  case  (in  Luke 
X.  18),  'And  ho  said  unto  them,  I  beheld  Satan  fallen  as  lightning 
from  heaven,'  affords  no  real  pnrallcl,  as  it  arises  out  of,  and  bears 
directly  on,  the  joint  ministry  of  himself  and  his  disciples  at  the 
time  in  question.  A  similar  difficulty  arises  in  connexion  with  the 
details  of  the  period  of  retirement  in  the  wilderness  which  follows, 


ST.  MARK  1.  12.     XMk  g^ 

And  straightway  the  Spirit  driveth  him  forth  into  the  i; 

especially  as  given  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  though  that  a  season  of 
spiritual  trial  and  conflict  did  ensue  can  hardly  be  doubted. 

The  Tcmpiatton  (cf.  Matt.  i\'.  i-ii  ;   Luke  iv.  i-is). 

This  incident — thelastcftheBeginningof  Jesus' Gospel— is  treated 
with  striking  brevity  in  Mark,  as  compared  with  the  other  Synoptic 
Gospels,  Is  this  due  to  ignorance  of  their  narrative  of  fasting  and 
specific  temptations  (comp.  note  on  Matt.  iv.  2)  ?  We  cannot  say. 
In  any  case  Mark's  treatment  of  it  is  in  keeping  with  his  general 
method,  namely  the  exhibition  of  Jesus  and  his  Gospel  through 
the  medium  of  deeds  rather  than  of  words.  It  is  with  Truth  as 
*  embodied  in  a  tale '  that  he  is  mainly  concerned.  The  truth  here 
suggested  is  that  Jesus'  works  of  power  over  the  forces  of  Evil, 
the  <  Kingdom  '  of  Satan  (in  the  language  of  iii.  24%  which  Mark 
is  about  to  narrate,  were  the  issue  of  Messiah's  personal  victory 
over  the  assaults  of  the  king  of  that  usurping  kingdom,  as  Tempter 
to  disloyalty  to  the  one  true  King.  Having  '  bound  the  Strong 
one '  in  that  personal  moral  struggle,  Jesus  was  able  to  '  spoil  his 
house'  of  its  contents  (ib.  v.  27).  Thereby  the  Lord's  'Anointed 
One'  is  already  in  principle  King  of  the  realm  of  Spirits,  evil  as 
well  as  good,  and  so  able  to  deliver.  Thus  the  Beginning  or 
Prelude  of  Jesus'  Gospel  Ministry  as  Messiah  is  complete  ;  and  he 
steps  forth  into  that  ministry  fully  prepared  and  equipped  for  all 
liiat  it  involves  (14  f).  For  the  historicity  of  the  details  of  the 
Temptation,  see  end  of  note  appended  to  the  Baptism. 

But  if  Mark's  account  is  brief,  it  has  features  of  its  own,  such  as 
the  prolonged  or  continuous  nature  of  the  struggle,  also  the 
graphic  touch  about  the  wild  beasts,  but  especially  the  forcible 
way  in  which  he  puts  the  compelling  impulse  'driving'  Jesus  into 
solitude.  This  impulse  Mark  seems  to  connect  closely  with  the 
experiences  just  narrated  (cf  end  of  notes  on  v.  ii\  by  the  use 
of  his  favourite  phrase  'And  straightway'  (see  v.  18).  The  other 
evangelists  prefer  to  speak  of  Jesus  as  being  '  led'  (Luke  iv.  r)  or 
'led  up  '  (Matt.  iv.  i)  by  the  Spirit.  Mark  has  a  stronger  word, 
'  casteth  forth,'  '  constrains  to  depart '  (cf.  v.  43).  What  is  meant 
is  that  Jesus  was  impelled  by  a  constraining  influence  which  he 
recognized  to  be  of  God,  and  to  which  his  own  will  simply  yields, 
to  seek  solitude  in  order  to  see  more  clearly  the  will  and  way  of 
God  for  him,  in  fulfilling  his  high  mission  to  Israel.  The  use  of 
the  historic  present,  'driveth.'  is  very  characteristic  of  Mark: 
comp.  Sir  J.  C.  Hawkins,  Horae  Synopiicae,  pp.   143  ff  ,  214.  ii. 

12.  And  straig^htway  the  Spirit  driveth  him  forth:  lit. 
'casteth  forth.'  The  vigorous  realism  of  this  description  of  the 
overmastering  pressure  of  the  mood  created  by  the  great  hour 
of  vocation    is    an    instance  of    the   manner  'unembarrassed   by 


96  ST.  MARK  1.  13.     X^k 

13  wilderness.     And   he  was  in  the  wilderness  forty  days 

reverence  '  which  A.  B.  Bruce  attributed  to  Mark,  but  which  was 
perhaps  proper  rather  to  the  tradition  he  uses. 

into  the  wilderness.  The  narrative  suggests  a  different 
part,  a  remoter  and  lonelier  part,  of  the  same  wilderness  of  Judaea 
in  which  John  was  baptizing. 

13.  And  he  was  in  the  wilderness  forty  days  tempted  of 
Satan.  Mark's  words  imply  that  he  was  tempted  throughout  the 
time  spent  in  the  wilderness :  so  also  Luke  (iv.  2).  Matthew 
speaks  as  if  the  series  of  temptations  which  he  records  came  upon 
Jesus  only  at  the  end  of  this  period,  a  period  spent  also  in  fasting, 
at  the  close  of  which,  when  worn  and  exhausted,  he  was  met 
by  three  typical  forms  of  temptation.  Luke  seems  to  combine 
the  two  conceptions,  so  as  to  make  those  special  temptations 
the  climax  and  concentration  of  the  period  of  more  general 
searching  of  heart  and  of  doubt  as  to  the  principles  and  methods 
of  fulfilling  the  Messianic  vocation.  Further  Mark  says  nothing  of 
'  fasting '  during  this  period  (see  13'=)  ;  probably  this  was  not  part 
of  the  original  tradition.  It  is  quite  likely  that  Jesus  did  fast, 
in  the  looser  use  of  this  word,  to  the  extent  of  being  largely 
oblivious  to  the  claims  of  the  body  and  satisfying  them  only  occa- 
sionally, as  hunger  and  fatigue  made  themselves  felt  :  but  no 
stress  was  at  first  laid  on  this  in  the  Christian  tradition.  '  Forty 
days  '  is  the  traditional  length  of  such  periods  of  retirement  in  the 
O.  T.  for  both  Moses  and  Elijah  (cf.  ix.  4^.  As  to  the  nature  of 
the  temptation  experienced  by  Jesus  Mark  gives  no  hint.  It  is 
most  natural  to  suppose,  judging  from  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  its 
special  theme  was  the  kind  of  Messiahship  his  was  to  be,  as  com- 
pared with  current  notions  —a  problem  that  runs  through  all 
Jesus'  ministry. 

While  Mattlie  w  and  Luke  speak  of  the  '  Tempter  '  as  *  the  devil,' 
a  Greek  term  meaning  the  accuser  (cf.  Rev.  xii.  10)  or  slanderer, 
Mark  uses  the  Hebrew  name  Satan,  the  'adversary'  (Job  ii.  i\ 
Scripture  represents  the  spiritual  Adversary  of  God  and  His 
Kingdom  among  men,  in  the  whole  range  of  its  beneficent  sway 
in  healthful  life  of  body  and  soul,  as  a  being  to  whose  usurping 
liold  on  men,  through  temptation  yielded  to,  bondage  of  body  and 
mind  are  traced.  It  is  to  the  Divine  Power  wielded  by  Jesus  for 
the  deliverance  or  '  Salvation'  of  mankind  from  such  bondage,  as 
contrary  to  God's  creative  purpose  for  man — and  the  cancelling  of 
which  was  the  essence  of  the  Prophetic  picture  of  the  Messianic 
Kingdom  and  of  Messiah's  functions  therein — that  Mark  wishes  to 
direct  his  readers'  special  attention  in  the  narrative  which  follows. 
There  Jesus  'went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were 
under  the  tjranny  of  the  devil '  (Acts  x.  38)  ;  and  he  could  do 
it,  because  he  had  already-  won  the  victory  in  his  own  person,  in 


ST.  MARK   1.  13.     XMk  gj 

tempted  of  Satan  ;  and  he  was  with  the  wild  beasts  ;  and 
the  angels  ministered  unto  him. 

this  conflict  with  temptation  to  distrust  his  Father,  to  whom  by 
right  belonged  all  power.  The  temptation,  we  gather,  was  one 
springing  out  of  Jesus'  new  conscious  relation  to  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  viz.  to  grasp  at  its  powers  by  self-seeking  methods,  so  virtu- 
ally forgetting  the  essence  of  his  filial  relation  as  'a  Son  of  Man ' 
to  God  as  Father.  Jesus'  mighty  ministry'  was  the  fruit  of  victory 
here  :  and  its  foundation  was  laid  in  this  final  stage  of  his  prepara- 
tion. Hence  it  was  fitting  that  Mark  should  relate  that  Jesus,  as 
Messiah,  the  representative  Head  of  God's  People  before  God,  him- 
self underwent  temptation  at  the  hands  of  the  Adversary  of  the 
Kingdom.  Thereby  he  shared  the  common  lot,  and  was  subject 
to  the  common  human  law  that  onlj'  througli  victory  over  tempta- 
tion to  dislo3'alty  to  God,  in  thought  even  before  deed,  can  man's 
true  filial  relation  to  God  be  realized  :  cf.  Heb.  ii.  17  f.,  iv.  15,  'one 
that  has  been  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are — without  sin,' 
and  V.  8,  '  though  he  was  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  (experimentally) 
obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered.' 

Much,  indeed,  of  the  popular  idea  of  the  Tempter,  and  his  sub- 
ordinate agents,  is  due  not  to  Scripture  but  to  mediaeval  theolog3', 
coming  down  largely  through  Milton's  Paradise  Lost.  Such  asso- 
ciations must  be  kept  in  check  as  one  reads  the  N.  T. 

and  he  was  with  the  wild  beasts.  Mark  alone  mentions 
this.  Travellers  speak  of  the  number  of  wild  beasts — cheetahs, 
boars,  jackals,  wolves,  hyaenas,  &c. — still  to  be  met  in  the  deserts 
of  the  Holy  Land,  especially  in  the  neighbourhood  of  a  uadi  or 
ravine  (see  Tristram,  Land  0/  Israel,  p.  240).  Fanciful  meanings 
have  been  read  into  this  description.  But  probably  it  is  merely 
intended  to  sharpen  the  picture  of  the  desolateness  of  his  position. 
and  the  angels  ministered  unto  him  :  probably  to  his  bodilj' 
wants  in  such  a  region,  on  the  analogy  of  Elijah  (i  Kings  xix.  5  S.). 
The  tense  refers  to  the  whole  period  spent  by  Jesus  in  the  wilds ; 
and  the  statement  is  in  fact  the  other  side  of  the  picture  just  given 
of  his  state  far  from  human  society.  Matthew  records  things  dif- 
ferently, viz.  that  'angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him'  at  the  end 
of  the  temptation.  It  is  possible  that  the  motive  of  Mark's  words 
is  the  assurance  of  angelic  care  over  the  man  after  God's  own 
heart,  as  in  Ps.  xci.  ii,  regarded  as  Messianic  (and  as  such  cited 
by  the  Tempter  in  the  account  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  though  with 
a  somewhat  difTerent  reference). 

A.     The  GALiLiCAN  Ministry  :  i.  14 — ix.  50. 
i.  14  f.    Suntmaiy   of  Jesus'   Gospel-mimsiry  in    Galilee   (comp. 
Matt.  iv.  12-17  '•  Luke  iv.  14  f.). 

Mark  appears  to  overleap  a  space  of  time,  even  after  the  forty 

H 


98  ST.  MARK  1.  14,  15.    XMk 

14  Now  after  that  John  was  delivered  up,  Jesus  came 

15  into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  God,  '^■and  saying, 

*  om.  and  saying  N  Syr.  Sin.  c. ;  many  MSS.  omit  and 

days,  amounting  perhaps  to  months.  Ignoring  all  that  is  found 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (Jolin  i.  29  —iv.  42),  he  proceeds  at  once  to 
Jesus'  return  to  Galilee,  here  treated  as  marked  by  his  first  public 
preaching.  As,  however,  the  relation  of  the  events  recorded  in 
the  various  Gospels  at  this  stage  is  not  certain,  we  must  confine 
our  notice  to  Mark's  story  as  it  stands.  In  any  case  it  is  clear 
that  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  made  a  crisis,  according  to 
Mark,  and  formed  the  occasion  for  the  commencement  of  Christ's 
public  ministry  in  Galilee,  apparently  in  contiimation  of  the 
Baptist's. 

14.  Now  after  that  John  was  delivered  up  :  i.  e.  to  prison  by 
Herod  ;  see  Josephus  at  end  of  note  on  v.  4,  and  Mark's  full  story 
in  vi.  17  fT.  It  is  a  true  artistic  instinct  which  makes  him  postpone 
his  account  of  the  circumstances,  as  here  likely  to  divert  attention 
from  the  career  of  the  Central  Figure  at  a  crucial  point  in  the 
narrative.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Matthew,  while  Luke,  in 
keeping  with  his  more  historical  methods,  merely  summarizes  the 
story  at  the  end  of  his  account  of  John's  preaching  (iii.  19,  20), 
before  describing  Jesus'  baptism. 

Jesus  came  into  Galilee,  preaching*.  Mark  gives  no  hint 
that  Jesus  began  his  preaching  in  any  shape  or  form  before  John's 
ceased,  or  that  he  preached  at  all  before  reaching  Galilee.  He 
does  not,  indeed,  exclude  some  slight  proclamation  of  the  Kingdom 
as  at  hand  (whether  side  by  side  with  John  or  otherwise),  ere 
Jesus  actually  reached  Galilee  ;  but  had  he  known  of  such  an 
extensive  work  as  the  Fourth  Gospel  describes  seemingly  prior  to 
this  stage,  he  could  hardly  have  written  as  he  does.  Moreover 
Peter  in  Acts  x.  37  definitely  makes  Jesus'  Gospel  throughout  '  all 
Judaea '  begin  '  from  Galilee,  after  the  baptism  which  John 
preached'  (i.e.  after  its  cessation).  And  this  is  confirmed  by 
Luke  (iv.  14),  who  mentions  Jesus'  return,  '  in  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  into  Galilee,'  immediately  after  the  Temptation,  as  also  by 
Matt.  iv.  12,  17,  '  Now  when  he  heard  that  John  was  delivered 
up,  he  withdrew  into  Galilee  .  .  .  ,'  and  '  From  that  time  began 
Jesus  to  preach  and  to  say.  Repent,'  &c.  Mark,  however,  does 
not  actually  suggest  that  John's  imprisonment  afforded  a  motive 
for  his  beginning  thenceforth  to  preach  in  Galilee  :  he  simply 
uses  the  event  to  indicate  the  moment  when  he  did  so,  i.e.  the 
moment  when  the  voice  of  the  earlier  Prophet  of  the  Kingdom 
was  silenced. 

Galilee.  In  it  Jesus  had  his  home,  to  it  most  of  his  early 
followers    belonged    by    birth    or    residence.       It    was   the    most 


ST.  MARK  1.  15.    XMk  99 

northerly  of  the  three  provinces  into  which  Palestine — Judaea  in 
the  wider  sense,  as  the  Romans  usually  spoke  of  it — west  of 
Jordan,  was  divided  ;  and  was  now  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Herod  Antipas.  'This  name  .  .  .  means  in  itself.  .  .  The  Ring 
{Gain !  .  .  .  Like  our  circle,  or  circuit,  it  was  applied  geographi- 
cally to  any  well-defined  region,  as  for  example  the  region  east  of 
Jerusalem,  which  Ezekiel  calls  the  Easferyi  Galilee,  .  .  .  or  to  the 
Galilees  of  the  Philistines.''  So,  too,  Galilee  was  originally  Galilee  of 
the  Gentiles,  as  it  is  called  in  Is.  ix.  i,  quoted  in  Matt.  iv.  15.  It 
was,  to  begin  with,  used  to  describe  '  the  northern  border  of 
Israel,  which  was  pressed  and  permeated  from  three  sides  by 
foreign  tribes.  Thence  the  name  gradually  spread,  till  in  Isaiah's 
time  it  was  as  far  south  as  the  Lake  of  Gennesaret.  By  the  time 
of  the  Maccabees  it  had  reached  the  Plain  of  Esdraelon,  and 
covered  the  whole  of  the  most  northerlj'  of  the  three  provinees 
into  which,  after  the  Exile,  the  land  west  of  Jordan  was  divided. 
The  population  remained  far  more  Gentile  than  before.'  But  after 
the  victorious  Maccabaean  reaction  against  non-Jewish  influences 
and  elements  in  Palestine, '  it  was  natural  to  drop  out  of  the  name 
the  words  of  the  Gentiles''  (G.  A.  Smith,  hiist.  Gcorg.  4r3ff.). 

Galilee  contained  a  large  proportion  of  Gentiles,  mostly  Greek- 
speaking  Syrians  ;  and  on  that  ground,  as  well  as  that  of  its 
distance  from  Jerusalem,  it  was  regarded  by  the  Judseans,  and 
especially  the  religious  authorities  of  the  '  holy  '  centre  of  Judaism, 
as  on  a  lower  religious  level  and  of  a  less  pure  Jewish  type  in 
habits  as  in  speech  (cf.  Mark  xiv.  70;  Matt.  xxvi.  6g;  Luke  xiii.  i  f. ; 
Acts  ii.  7).  The  Galilaeans  were  '  provincial '  in  their  ways  ;  and 
it  was  probably  regarded  as  part  of  the  fitness  of  things  that  Scrip- 
ture spoke  of  no  prophet  as  to  arise  out  of  Galilee  (John  vii  52). 
Hence  that  Jesus  was  '  the  Galilean '  became  in  itself  a  bar  to  his 
being  held  a  prophet  in  official  religious  circles  in  Jerusalem.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Galilaeans,  as  less  narrowly  traditional  and 
conventional  in  their  notions  of  pietj'  than  the  Jews  of  Judaea, 
were  more  open  to  new  ideas  as  to  the  meaning  of  their  religion 
and  of  Scripture,  such  as  Jesus  had  to  impart.  The  area  of  Galilee 
was  that  of  an  average  English  shire.  It  was  a  land  of  beautiful 
and  diversified  scenery,  of  meadow  and  pasture,  of  orchard  and 
grain  field.  Josephus  dilates  in  glowing  terms  on  its  fertility. 
When  he  refers  to  the  populousness  of  the  province  he  uses 
language  that  seems  exaggerated.  But  it  is  certain  that  it  was 
peopled  more  thickly  than  we  can  now  well  imagine.  '  It  was 
to  Roman  Palestine  what  the  manufacturing  districts  are  to 
England,  covered  with  busy  towns  and  teeming  villages  and 
thriving  fisheries.' 

preaching:  rather  'heralding,'  'proclaiming,' God's  gracious 
message  to  His  people.  Such  is  the  idea  in  view,  not  what  we 
should  understand  by  *  preacliing  the  Gospel.'  And  the  gist  of  the 
Proclamation  is  quoted  in  the  words  which  follow.      Jesus  now 


loo  ST.  MARK  1.  IS.     XMk 

The  time  is  fulfilled,  and   the   kingdom   of  God  is  at 
hand :    repent  ye,  and  believe  in  the  gospel. 


t.ikes  up  the  definite  vvorK  of  Evangelic  proclamation  in  the  sense 
contemplated  by  'the  Evangelic  prophet'  (Is.  xl,  Ixi),  a  sermon 
from  one  of  whose  most  characteristic  passages  is  put  by  Luke  in 
the  forefront  of  his  narrative  of  Jesus'  ministry,  by  way  of  frontis- 
piece (iv.  i6  ff.).  Mark's  terse  summary  of  'God's  Good  News '  is 
quite  in  accord  with  Luke's  specimen  of  its  more  detailed  exposi- 
tion :  both  are  on  the  lines  of  Isa.  xl.  3-11,  Ixi.  i  f. 

15.  Tand  sayingfil  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  at  hand.  This  was  in  fact  the  substance  of  the  Good  News 
(some  old  MSS.  have  not  '  and  saying,'  but  only  '  that '  =i.  e.). 
Thus  Jesus  had  a  great  aiinoimcenicnt  to  deliver,  carr3'ing  with  it 
an  urgent  call  (15'').  The  first  point  was  that  'the  time,' the  defi- 
nite season  of  crisis  for  the  entrance  of  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
was  now  fully  come  ;  so  that  nothing  in  the  counsel  of  God  stood 
in  the  way  of  that  Divine  event.  Not  only  had  the  Baptist  come 
as  the  Forerunner  of  the  Kingdom  as  foretold  in  Mai.  iv.  5  (cf. 
Mark  ix.  13)  ;  Jesus  himself  had  in  his  own  soul  the  witness  at  his 
Baptism  that  the  New  Era  was  already  dawning. 

The  idea  behind  the  words  '  the  season  is  full  come '  is  different 
from  and  simpler  than  that  in  Paul's  use  of  the  phrase  in  Gal.  iv.  4  ; 
Eph.  i.  10. 

the  kingdom  of  God.  Here  ■we  meet  one  of  the  characteristic 
terms  of  the  Gospels  — 'the  kingdom,'  'the  kingdom  of  heaven' 
(or  '  of  the  heavens,'  as  usually  in  Matthew  and  as  only  in  him), 
'  the  kingdom  of  God,'  as  in  Mark  and  Luke  and  Paul. 

The  primary  idea  underlying  the  phrase  is  simply  that  of 
Jahweh's  reign  or  sovereignty',  over  and  in  His  own  People, 
perfectly  fulfilled  or  consummated  in  a  way  hitherto  only  fore- 
shadowed in  Israel's  history  at  its  best,  e.  g.  in  the  reign  of  David. 
This  idea  gives  rise  to  the  secondary  meaning,  the  order  of 
things  resulting  from  such  Divine  or  heavenly  rule,  the  regime 
constituted  by  God's  perfect  reign  :  and  this  in  turn  leads  on  to 
the  thought  of  the  Kingdom  or  rule  exercised  under  God  by 
Israel,  as  Jahweh's  Son  or  vice-regent,  over  and  among  the  other 
nations  to  whom  Jahweh's  sovereignty  extends  by  right,  though 
not  as  yet  in  fact  owing  to  idolatry  and  false  religion  (see  Dan.  ii. 
44,  vii.  14,  18,  27).  Thus  'the  Kingdom  of  God'  expresses  the 
perfected  Theocracy  in  Israel,  the  realization  of  the  prophetic 
idea  of  the  rule  of  God  on  earth  among  a  People  become  fully 
devoted  or  '  holy  '  in  heart  to  Him  and  His  Covenant  or  revealed 
will.  This  idea  summed  up  the  central  hope  of  Old  Testament 
religion  ;  but  it  existed  under  varying  imaginative  forms  in  Jesus' 
day,   all  more  or  less  coloured  by    Daniel   vii,    the   poetic  and 


ST.  MARK  1.  15.     XMk  loi 

picturesquely  symbolic  imagery  of  which  had  for  a  century  and 
more  been  developing  and  hardening  into  conventional  forms  as 
'  Apocalyptic' 

'Apocalyptic'  is  the  name  given  to  the  body  of  conceptions 
connected  with  the  future  Divine  or  heavenly  '  Kingdom,'  as  the 
consummation  of  God's  dealing  with  His  People  and  the  World, 
when  'this  Age'  {6lam)  should  give  birth — through  troubles 
compared  to  '  birth- pangs  '  (cf.  Mark  xiii.  8)  and  ending  in  a  Divine 
Judgement — to  'the  coming  Age'  (x.  30)  or  simply  'that  Age' 
(Luke  XX.  34  f.).  Thus  Apocalyptic  dealt  largely  with  the  Last 
Tilings  (eschata)  ;  and  the  preoccupation  of  mind  of  those 
dominated  by  it  was  '  Eschatological.'  Such  was  the  prevailing 
attitude  in  Jesus'  day  of  all  the  more  earnest  Jewish  circles  in 
Palestine,  in  which  the  Messianic  Hope  of  a  trul^'  regenerate 
Israel  lived  with  any  reality  and  vigour. 

Hence,  in  declaring  that  God's  Kingdom  was  at  hand,  Jesus, 
like  John,  was  saying  someiliing  that  deeply  stured  the  bulk  of  Ins 
fellow-countrymen,  though  in  ways  var3'ing  much  with  the  varying 
conceptions  entertained  as  to  its  exact  meaning  and  nature: 
witness  the  varying  attitudes  assumed  to  him  and  his  conception 
of  the  Kingdom.  At  the  very  root  of  the  deepening  tragedy  of 
Jesus'  public  career  lay  the  face  that,  unconsciously  or  consciously, 
those  who  heard  his  message  of  the  Kingdom  were  more  or  less 
at  cross-purposes  with  his  own  inmost  thought  as  to  its  nature 
and  the  methods  of  its  coming.  He  used  for  the  most  part  the 
common  language,  but  with  far  greater  emphasis  on  its  inner  and 
spiritual  suggestions,  and  to  that  extent  S3'mbolically  rather  than 
in  the  usual  outer  and  literal  sense,  with  its  national  and  material 
limitations  (see  iurther  Allen,  The  Gospel  ace.  to  Si.  Mark,  197  f.). 
repent  ye.  The  second  element  in  the  gracious  message 
was  the  call  founded  on  the  annoimcement.  Jesus  took  up  John's 
call  when  the  latter  was  silenced,  and  began  with  the  note  of 
repentance,  though  he  had  far  more  to  give  than  had  John  in  the 
way  of  positive  motive  furnished  by  the  very  nature  of  the  King- 
dom, set  forth  in  his  proclamation  as  'good  news'  or  Gospel. 
The  '  repentance '  in  each  case  was  relative  to  the  nature  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  to  the  preparedness  requisite  for  sharing  in  its 
blessings.  In  John's  preaching  the  accent  was  on  the  searching 
nature  of  the  Judgement  which  would  sift  men  like  wheat  and 
chaff:  Jesus  dwelt  on  the  hopeful  aspect,  God's  good-will. 

and  believe  in  the  g'ospel:  i.  e.  in  the  good  news  of  God's 
Kingdom  as  nigh.  This  positive  element  in  the  call  is  recorded 
onlj' by  Mark.  The  phrase  'believe  in  the  Gospel'  is  peculiar, 
being  in  the  Greek  close  to  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  idiom  (cf. 
LXX  of  Ps.  cv.  12).  The  'gospel'  is  here  to  be  taken  in  the 
Isaianic  sense  (see  above,  on  v.  14). 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  there  is  no  mention  of  Jesus  as  preaching 


I02  ST.  MARK  1.  i6.     P 

[P]  And  passing  along  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  he  saw 

a  rite  of  baptism,  as  part  of  his  call  to  Repentance  and  Faith  in 
the  Good  News  of  the  Kingdom  at  hand.  This  can  hardly  be 
accidental,  especially  in  view  of  the  contrast  in  i.  8  between 
John's  as  a  '  water'  Baptism  and  Messiah's  as  baptism  with  '  holy 
Spirit,'  the  cleansing  power  of  which  water  was  but  symbol. 
Thus  E.  F.  Scott  seems  justified  in  saying  {The  Beginning  of  the 
Church,  p.  169)  that  Jesus  '  regarded  the  rite  as  of  secondary 
importance,  and  did  not  require  it  of  those  who  desired  to  join 
his  fellowship.  .  .  .  With  a  profound  spiritual  instinct  He  avoided 
all  confusion  of  His  moral  and  spiritual  demands  with  mere  cere- 
monial practice.'  For  the  Messianic  Age  of  the  Spirit  had 
virtually  dawned  in  his  own  personal  experience  as  Messiah. 
Moreover  the  corporate  baptism  of  Israel,  such  as  John's  was  in 
idea,  had  already  done  its  work  of  helping  to  prepare  and  mark 
out  a  people  ready  for  the  Kingdom  as  about  to  appear  ;  and 
Jesus  began  his  preaching  on  the  basis  of  this,  and  as  supplying  the 
further  stage  wherein  the  Kingdom  was  beginning  already  to  appear, 
in  himself  as  Messianic  Son,  the  fully  Anointed  with  the  Spirit. 

The  First  Stage  :  beginnings  and  main  issues. 

i.  i6-iii.  13. 

{a)  Early  days  in  Capernaum :  i.  16-34. 

Thus  far  Mark's  narrative  has  been  on  the  lines  of  the  common 
Apostolic  tradition,  which  took  its  fundamental  shape  in  the  preach- 
ing of  the  early  Jerusalem  days,  reflected  in  the  opening  chapters  of 
Acts.  In  its  shaping  Peter  no  doubt  took  the  leading  jjart  ;  yet  it 
■was  not  his  individual  creation,  but  bore  the  stamp  of  the  common 
coiporate  consciousness  of  the  original  circle  of  Jesus'  personal 
disciples.  Later  on,  as  the  Apostolic  preachers  went  in  different 
directions  on  their  several  missionary  tasks,  in  Palestine  and 
beyond  it.  minor  variations  would  arise  in  its  form  and  phrasing. 
What  we  have  throughout  in  Mark  is  mostly  the  special  Pctrine 
form  of  the  Apostolic  tradition,  as  fixed  by  preaching  and  more 
systematic  oral  instruction  (catcchesis)  to  converts  and  other 
inquirers.  In  this  Petrine  tradition  there  were  gradually  grafted 
on  to  the  common  Apostolic  stock  (which  we  may  denote  by  the 
symbol  X,  largely  coinciding  with  the  accepted  sj'mbol  Q  :  see 
Introduction)  certain  of  Peter's  own  memories  illustrative  of  the 
way  in  which  Jesus  had  delivered  his  '  Gospel '  message  among 
men  by  word  and  deed,  especially  the  latter.  Here,  then,  we 
come  upon  the  first  and  most  marked  instance  of  this  distinctive 
Petrine  strain  in  the  Gospel  tradition  familiar  to  Mark,  viz.  the 
story  of  Peter's  own  call  to  special  discipleship,  and  of  the  earliest 
events  which  followed  it  in  his  experience.  Naturally  these 
would  stand  out  in  his  memory  as  typical  of  the  way  in  which  his 
Master  had  gone  about  his  mission,  and  had  impressed  men. 


ST.  MARK  1.  i6.     P  103 

Simon  and  Andrew  the  brother  of  Simon  casting  a  net 

As  regards  the  Call  of  the  First  Disciples,  there  is  a  rather 
different  narrative  in  Luke  v.  i-ii.  The  immediate  response 
given  to  the  Call  implies  that  it  can  hardly  have  been  the  first 
meeting  between  Jesus  and  these  men.  The  Fourth  Gospel 
(chap.  i.  35-42)  gives  an  account  of  a  3'et  earlier  call  of  disciples, 
from  which  we  learn  that  Andrew  and  Simon  had  been  followers 
of  the  Baptist.  But  in  any  case  they  had  probably  heard  of,  if 
not  conversed  with,  Jesus  since  he  moved  to  Capernaum  (see 
V.  21),  which  he  may  well  have  done  at  once,  as  Matt.  iv.  13 
suggests,  after  returning  to  Galilee,  in  order  to  '  begin '  in  a  more 
public  manner  than  was  possible  in  Nazareth. 

i.  16-20.  Call  of  the  First  Disciples  (Matt.  iv.  18-22). 

16.  And  passing  along'  by  the  sea  of  Galilee.  The  scene  of 
the  Call  was  by  the  beautiful  sheet  of  water  on  the  shores  of 
which  so  many  of  Christ's  words  were  spoken,  and  so  many  of  his 
deeds  done.  Its  O.  T.  name  is  'the  sea  of  Chinneroth '  or 
'Chinnereth*  (Num.  xxxiv.  11;  Joshua  xi.  a  ;  i  Kings  xv.  20). 
In  I  Mace.  (xi.  67)  and  in  Josephus  it  is  Genne.sar  (Jewish  War 
HI,  X.  7,  &c.).  In  the  N.  T.  it  has  more  than  one  name:  in 
Matthew  and  Mark  'the  sea  of  Galilee';  in  Luke  usually  '  the 
Lake,'  once  '  the  lake  of  Gennesaret'  (v.  i)  ;  in  John  the  'sea  of 
Tiberias '  (xxi.  i),  '  the  sea  of  Galilee,  which  is  the  sea  of 
Tiberias'  (vi.  i).  This  last  name  connects  it  speciallj'  with  the 
city  called  Tiberias,  built  by  Herod  Agrippa  and  called  after  the 
Emperor  Tiberius.  The  lake  is  about  twelve  and  a  half  miles  long 
and  eight  miles  wide  at  its  broadest.  It  is  in  parts  150  feet  deep, 
and  lies  (according  to  Sir  Charles  Warren)  some  600  feet  below 
the  level  of  the  sea.  The  river  Jordan  enters  it  at  the  north  and 
passes  out  of  it  at  the  south  end.  The  lake  is  of  rare  beauty. 
Canon  Tristram  speaks  of  the  first  view  one  gets  of  it  as  like  that 
of  the  Lake  of  Geneva  from  the  crest  of  the  Jura  range. 

lie  sa'w  Simon  and  Andrew.  To  this  pair  of  brothers,  sons 
of  a  Jonas  (Matt.  xvi.  17)  or  Joanes,  our  'John'  (John  i.  42, 
xxi.  15-17),  and  belonging  to  Bethsaida  (John  i.  44'^  but  having 
their  home  then  in  Capernaum  (Mark  i.  29),  Jesus'  call  came  first. 
They  had  perhaps  been  so  far  prepared  for  it  by  connexion  with 
the  Baptist's  movement,  probably  also  by  some  previous  inter- 
course with  Jesus.  '  Simon  '  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew 
name  which  is  also  given  more  exactly  as  '  Symeon  '  (Acts  xv.  14  ; 
2  Pet.  i.  I,  R.  V.  margin).  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  is  the  name 
usually  given  to  this  disciple,  up  to  the  time  of  the  choosing  of  the 
Apostles,  when  it  is  superseded  by  'Peter.'  'Andrew'  is  a 
Greek  name,  but  one  used  also  by  Hebrews. 

casting  (a  net)  in  the  sea :  for  they  were  fishers.     The 


I04  ST.  MARK  1.  17,  i8.     P 

17  in  the  sea  :  for  they  were  fishers.     And  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  Come  ye  after  me,  and  I  will  make  you  to  become 

18  fishers  of  men.     And  straightway  they  left  the  nets,  and 

phrase  is  simply  '  casting  about  ' — a  simple  and  forcible  descrip- 
tion of  what  they  were  doing  at  the  time.  The  hand-net  (the 
name  of  which  is  derived  from  the  verb  here  used)  is  in 
view,  as  distinguished  from  the  *  draw-net '  or  '  drag-net,' 
which  was  used  for  fish  swimming  in  shoals  (Matt.  xxii.  47),  and 
was  trailed  along  behind  the  boat.  The  -hand-net'  was  used  by 
throwing  it  about,  generally  (to  judge  by  Thomson's  description 
in  The  Land  and  the  Book,  p.  402)  in  the  shallow  water  near  the 
shore,  in  which  the  fisherman  stood  to  make  his  casts.  Thus 
Andrew  and  Simon  were  probably  not  in  a  boat  but  were 
'casting,'  not  '  a  net'  but  each  his  net,  hard  by  the  shore — where 
they  could  easily  be  addressed. 

17.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Come  ye  after  m.e.  The 
phrase  '  Come  hither  after  me '  expresses  a  call  to  become 
followers  in  the  sense  of  disciples. 

and  I  will  make  you  to  become  fisliers  of  men.  They 
were  summoned  to  a  kind  of  work  analogous  to  their  present,  but 
of  a  higher  order. 

18.  And  straigfhtway :  lit.  '  And  straight '  {eitlhus).  This 
phrase,  both  as  a  whole  and  in  its  Aramaic  use  of*  straight'  (like 
•next'),  is  highly  characteristic  of  this  Gospel.  It  has  the  sense 
'And  forthwith,'  used  to  represent  immediate  sequence,  and 
gives  a  lively  effect  of  active  movement  to  the  narrative,  even  in 
the  parabolic  stories.  How  characteristic  it  is  comes  out  clearly 
by  comparison  with  the  companion  Gospels,  since  it  occurs  (in 
the  best  text)  in  the  sixteen  chapters  of  Mark  thirty-five  times  (also 
once  with  '  but '  for  '  and,'  and  '  straight '  alone  in  five  other  cases)  ; 
in  Matt.'s  twenty-eightchaptcrs  some  nine  times  (threeof  them  with 
euthus — ail  parallel  with  Mark — while  the  other  six,  as  well  as 
nine  cases  without  'and,'  have  the  more  usual  Gk.  adverbial  form 
euiheos)  ;  in  Luke  only  twice  (once  in  a  parable,  once  parallel  with 
Mark  but  in  the  form  etttheos.  which  is  found  also  five  times  in  dis- 
course) ;  while  in  Acts  it  occurs  five  times  (^once  with  euthus  in 
X.  16,  four  times  with  eutheos,  which  occurs  alone  in  five  other 
cases).  '  Straightway'  {euthus)  occurs  also  thrice  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  The  phrase,  especially  with  'And,'  reveals  the  Aramaic 
basis  of  the  Gospel  tradition  as  particularly  influential  in  Mark. 
It  corresponds  to  the  Hebraic  and  Aramaic  '  And,  lo,'  which 
Matt,  and  Luke  prefer,  but  which  Mark  never  has,  so  shewing 
that  his  favourite  '  And  straightway'  really  takes  its  place,  as 
sometimes  in  the  LXX  (Gen.  xv.  4,  xxxviii.  29)  :  see  further  i.  ai. 
Here  its  use  helps  to  bring  home  what  is  probably  a  main  point 


ST.  MARK  1.  19,  20.     P  105 

followed  him.     And  going  on  a  little  further,  he  saw  19 
James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his  brother,  who 
also  were  in  the  boat  mending  the  nets.     And  straight-  20 
way  he  called  them  :  and  they  left  their  father  Zebedee 
in  the  boat  with  the  hired  servants,  and  went  after  him. 


in  the  story,  viz.  their  prompt  and  unquestioning  response  to 
Jesus'  call,  as  suggestive  of  the  moral  power  of  his  word  and  the 
personality  behind  it.  The  effect  of  the  call  was  such  that  they 
left  their  nets  just  as  they  were,  and  the  interests  they  stood  for, 
and  joined  him. 

This  call  of  regular  'disciples'  marks  an  important  epoch  of 
Jesus'  ministrj'  and  its  methods.  A  still  further  stage  in  their 
detachment  from  other  duties,  and  their  special  attachment  to 
Jesus'  society  as  learners  and  companions,  was  yet  to  come,  by 
their  formal  inclusion  in  the  fresh  body  of  the  Twelve  (iii.  13  ff.). 
Hence  perhaps  we  may  infer  that  they  still  plied  their  fishing 
from  time  to  time.  Such  a  gradual  and  informal  gathering  of 
disciples  is  true  to  life,  as  we  may  see  from  theanalogy  of  the  case 
of  Francis  of  Assisi  and  his  companions. 

19.  he  saw  Ja:nes  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  John  his  brother. 
In  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  where  these  two  are  named  together, 
James  (the  Jacob  of  the  O.  T.  1  is  named  first,  an  order  which, 
particularly  when  coupled  with  the  explanation  that  John  was 
'  his  brother,'  suggests  that  James  was  the  elder  and  so  the  more 
important  person  (contrast  Acts  i.  13,  written  when  conditions  had 
changed).  From  Luke  v.  7.  10  we  learn  that  they  were  partners 
of  the  former  pair. 

who  also  were  in  the  boat:  that  is,  in  their  own  boat. 
'  Boat '  is  better  than  the  *  ship'  of  the  A.  V.,  while  '  themselves 
too  '  (like  the  other  pair)  would  be  better  than  '  who  also  were.' 

mending  the  nets  :  or  rather  putting  their  nets  in  order  (cf. 
Heb.  xi.  3,  X.  5,  for  the  same  verb\  Not  actually  fishing,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  other  two,  but  making  the  nets  all  ready  for  using. 

20.  and  they  left  their  father  Zebedee  in  the  boat.  In  their 
case  the  obedience  was,  if  possible,  even  more  striking,  especially 
as  judged  bj'  Oriental  standards.  From  Mark  xv.  40  f.  compared 
with  Matt,  xxvii.  56  we  gather  that  their  mother  Salome,  then  or 
later,  also  became  an  active  disciple  and  helper  of  Jesus. 

with  the  hired  servants:  better  '  hired  hands,'  '  hired  men.' 
This  touch  is  perhaps  inserted  to  meet  the  feeling  that  they  were 
acting  in  an  unfilial  way.  It  is  precarious  to  infer,  from  the  men- 
tion of  such  '  hands  '  in  their  case,  that  there  was  any  difference  in 
social  position  between  the  two  pairs  of  brothers,  especially  as 


io6  ST.  MARK  1.  21.     P 

And  they  go  into  Capernaum ;  and  straightway  on  the 
sabbath  day  he  entered  into  the  synagogue  and  taught. 


they  were  in  partnership.     But  it  implies  that  neither  of  them  be- 
longed to  the  really  poor. 

A  memorable  day  in  Jesus^  Ministry. 
I.  21-34. 
i.  21-28.     Jesus  in  the  Synagogue  at  Capernaum  (compare  Luke 

iv.  31-37)- 

We  have  here  Peter's  account  of  the  impression  made  on  his 
hearers  by  Christ's  teaching,  and  of  the  sensation  caused  by  his 
first  case  of  exorcism. 

21.  And  they  go.  Matthew  (iv.  13)  tells  us  that  on  starting  his 
mission  to  Galilee,  as  described  above  in  vv.  14  f.,  Jesus  had  left 
Nazareth  and  settled  in  Capernaum.  And  this  entrance  into  the 
city  after  the  call  of  disciples  in  no  way  excludes  this. 

into  Capernaum.  From  Mark  i.  29  it  appears  that  this  was 
Simon's  and  Andrew's  present  place  of  abode.  Capernaum,  in  its 
more  proper  form  Capharnaum,  is  not  mentioned  in  the  O.  T.  It 
came  to  be  spoken  of  as  Christ's  'own  city'  (Matt.  ix.  i),  by 
reason  of  the  close  connexion  he  had  with  it  during  his  ministry. 
Yet  so  far  was  it  from  accepting  his  mission  that  Jesus  warned  it, 
along  with  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida,  of  judgement  as  impending 
over  it  for  lack  of  repentance  and  true  faith  (Matt.  xi.  21-23  > 
Luke  X.  13-15).  Its  site  remains  still  uncertain.  Some  place  it 
at  Tell  Hum,  at  the  north-west  of  the  lake,  some  two  miles  south- 
west of  the  point  where  the  Jordan  enters.  Remains  of  a  city  of 
some  importance  are  found  there.  Others  locate  it  at  Khan 
Minyeh,  some  two  miles  south-west  of  Tell  Hum,  near  the  sea  and 
not  far  from  where  the  great  Damascus  road  passed  (e.  g.  G.  A. 
Smith,  op.  at.,  p.  456).  The  Httcr  is  preferable.  It  would  be  at 
the  northern  extremity  of  the  Plain  of  Gennesaret,  a  very  fertile 
strip  of  3  miles  (i^  deep)  between  the  hills  and  the  Lake  (see  vi. 
S3).  The  disuse  of  the  name  Capharnaum  was  probably  due  to 
the  fact  that,  according  to  the  Talmud,  'sinners'  {Biitd)  were 
styled  'sons  of  Cafi/uir  Nahum.''  This  would  explain  the  change 
to  Khan  Minyeh  (however  we  take  Minyeh). 

and  straightway  on  the  sabbath  day:  i.e.  on  the  first 
sabbath  after  the  call,  which  was  clearly  on  an  ordinary  working 
day.  Here  and  in  v.  23  'and  straightway  '  seems  to  have  merely 
the  same  dramatic  motive,  viz.  to  stimulate  the  imagination,  as 
'And  lo  !'   (see  i.  i8j. 

he  entered  into  the  synagogiie  andtaiight:  better  '  he  was 
teaching  in  the  synagogue  '  ('  entered  .  .  and'  seems  a  sccondar}' 
reading).     It  was  the  natural  thing  for  a  teacher  to  do,  as  it  gave 


ST.  MARK  1.  2  2.     P  107 

And  they  were  astonished  at  his  teaching :  for  he  taught  2a 


the  opportunit}'  of  speaking  to  the  people  in  a  simple  and  recog- 
nized way.  The  chief  purpose  of  the  synagogue  was  instruction 
in  the  Law,  and  this  was  not  left  in  the  hands  of  officials  only. 
Freedom  of  speech,  under  certain  reasonable  conditions,  was 
allowed  to  those  competent ;  and  any  one,  especially  a  Rabbi, 
might  be  called  on  by  the  '  rulers  of  the  synagogue '  to  expound. 
As  an  institution,  the  synagogue  belonged  probably  to  the  period 
of  the  Exile.  It  fulfilled  certain  objects  which  were  not  otherwise 
provided  for  by  the  written  Law.  It  acted  too,  as  a  '  counterpoise 
to  the  absolute  officialism  of  the  sacerdotal  service  '  (Morrison). 
Its  services  were  very  different  from  those  of  the  Temple,  con- 
sisting of  prayers,  the  reading  of  the  O.  T.,  and  exposition.  Mark 
speaks  of  '  the  synagogue  '  probably  because  it  was  the  only  one 
in  Capernaum.  So  Luke  (vii.  5)  tells  us  that  the  centurion  whose 
servant  Jesus  was  asked  to  heal  had  built  a  synagogue,  which  the 
Jews  of  Capernaum  speak  of  as  'our  sj'nagogue.' 

Much  of  Jesus'  early  work  took  the  foim  of  synagogue-teaching. 
Mark  makes  no  mention  of  such  teaching  after  vi.  2,  bj''  which 
time  relationship  with  the  religious  leaders  had  become  very 
strained. 

22.  And  they  -were  astonished.  A  strong  word,  expressing 
an  amazement  that  carried  them  out  of  themselves. 

at  liis  teaching'.  A  better  rendering  than  '  doctrine,'  the 
thing  in  view  being  the  manner  rather  than  the  matter  of  his  ex- 
position. 

for  he  taught  them  as  having'  authority.  What  amazed 
them  was  not  so  much  the  things  said  as  tlie  way  they  were  said. 
Their  professional  teachers,  when  they  opened  up  the  Law  or  the 
Prophets,  spoke  as  those  who  had  no  clear  fountain  of  knowledge 
in  themselves,  no  inward  witness  to  the  truth  of  what  they  asserted. 
I'hey  spoke  with  frequent  appeal  to  external  authority,  to  the 
words  of  some  great  Rabbi  or  to  generally  accepted  tradition. 
But  Christ  spoke  with  the  tone  of  certitude,  with  the  note  of  an 
inherent  authority,  as  one  who  had  knowledge  in  himself  and 
a  message  direct  from  God.  This  was  the  tone  of  inspired  con- 
viction. It  was  a  new  thing  to  the  Jews  of  that  day,  and,  indeed, 
of  many  a  day  before  John  revived  the  prophetic  note  in  his  own 
preaching.  We  have  little  of  Jesus'  actual  synagogue  teaching, 
save  the  sermon  at  Nazareth,  which  really  came  later  in  his 
ministry  (since  it  contains  references  to  Jesus'  work  in  Caper- 
naum, Luke  iv.  23),  though  Luke  puts  it  at  the  very  opening  of 
his  narrative  as  a  clr.ssic  example  of  Jesus'  Gospel  message.  The 
specimens  which  Mark  gives  of  Jesus'  public  teaching — as  distinct 
from  the  impression  of  authority  which  it  produced  on  men— are 


io8  ST.  MARK  1.  23,  24.    P 

23  them  as  having  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.     And 
straightway  there  was  in  their  synagogue  a  man  with  an 

24  unclean  spirit ;  and  he  cried  out,  saying.  What  have  we 

chiefly  of  an  occasional  kind   and  closely  bound  up  with  action  ; 
otherwise  it  is  mostly  teaching  to  disciples. 

and  not  as  the  scribes.  The  '  scribes,'  called  also  '  law3'ers,' 
'doctors  of  the  Law'  (Luke  v.  17),  were  the  powerful  class  to 
whom  the  Jews  looked  up  as  their  recognized  teachers.  With 
them  Jesus  soon  found  himself  in  conflict.  They  it  was  who  had 
built  up,  and  who  continued  to  expound  and  apply,  that  system  of 
traditional  Law  which  Jesus  said  '  made  void '  the  word  of  God, 
as  tending  to  give  to  the  external  and  ceremonial  the  place  which 
belonged  to  the  moral  and  spiritual.  No  doubt  there  were  dif- 
ferent tj'pes  of  scribes.  Among  them  there  were  men  with  insight 
into  religion  and  the  Divine  law.  But  as  a  class  they  had  become 
in  Christ's  time  pedantic,  hair-splitting,  dictatorial. 

23.  And  straightway  there  was  in  their  syna-gogne  a  man 
with  an  unclean  spirit.  'Then  and  there,'  as  we  say  (Mark 
says  'and  straight'),  a  startling  thing  happened,  which  remained 
vividly  in  Peter's  memory  as  his  first  experience  of  a  form  of  his 
Master's  God-given  power  to  meet  human  need  which  seemed 
specially  characteristic  of  his  Divine  Mission  (cf  Acts  x.  38).  For 
a  leading  place  is  given  by  his  associate,  Mark — and  by  the 
Apostolic  tradition  generally — to  this  kind  of  healing  (see  further 
under  v.  32  on  the  subject  of  '  demonic  '  possession  generally). 

Luke  describes  the  man  as  '  having  a  spirit  of  an  unclean  demon.' 
Mark  speaks  of  him  as  being  'in  an  unclean  spirit,'  i.e.  'in  the 
power  of,'  or  under  the  control  of,  such  a  spirit  :  comjiare  Luke 
iv.  14,  '  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit '  of  God.  But  the  demon  is  also 
spoken  of  as  located  in  the  man,  and  as  '  coming  out '  of  him.  Such 
words  express  the  completeness  of  the  union  between  them.  It 
was  as  if  man  and  demon  had  become  one,  each  absorbed  in  the 
other.  In  the  N.  T.  'unclean  spirit'  and  'demon'  are  inter- 
changeable terms,  the  former  being  characteristic  of  Mark.  'Un- 
clean,' in  this  connexion,  has  not  a  moral  reference,  or  even  (as 
usually  in  a  religious  sense,  to  begin  with  at  least)  a  ceremonial 
one,  so  much  as  a  properly  religious  one  :  it  denotes  the  spirit's 
character  as  alien  to  the  Holy  God,  its  membership  of  an  opposed 
realm. 

and  he  cried  out,  saying',  What  have  we  to  do  with  thee, 
thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth?  By  the  plurals  'we,'  '  us,'  it  appears 
that  the  spirit  (as  distinct  from  the  man  '  possessed  ')  is  represented 
as  speaking,  and  referring  to  itself  as  one  of  a  class.  This  is  borne 
out  by  V.  25,  where  Jesus  rebukes  the  speaker  and  bids  him  '  come 
out  of  the  man. 


ST.  MARK  1.  25.     P  109 

to  do  with  thee,  thou  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  art  thou  come 
to  destroy  us?  I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy 
One  of  God.     And  Jesus  rebuked  ^  him,  saying,  Hold  25 

*  Or,  a 


That  the  man  who  feels  himself  '  possessed  ^  should  speak  in  the 
character  of  the  spirit  which  he  and  others  believe  to  be  in  perma- 
nent possession  of  him,  his  true  self  as  it  were,  is  entirely  true  to 
what  the  modern  study  of  abnormal  ('alienist')  psychology  brings 
clearly  to  light.  And  this  holds  of  other  phenomena  in  this  narra- 
tive. Thus  those  suffering  from  mental  derangement  or  instability 
are  apt  to  be  more  sensitive  than  others  to  the  emotional  pressure 
of  the  presence  and  speech  of  an  exceptionally  great  and  good 
personality,  and  to  feel  an  uncontrollable  impulse  to  respond 
thereto,  whether  by  way  of  antipathy  or  sj-mpathy. 

art  thou  come  to  destroy  us  ?  The  sense  of  incompatibility 
begot  a  sense  of  possible  hostility  and  so  of  fear. 

X  know  thee  who  thou  art.  The  very  absence  of  normal 
reflective  control  over  their  various  native  powers  often  gives  the 
mentally  afflicted  greater  vividness  of  sensibility  in  the  sphere  of 
instinctive  intuitions,  even  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  order,  than  that 
of  the  mass  of  mankind.  So  was  it  wiih  this  man.  This  fact  the 
Evangelist  interprets  as  due  to  a  superhuman  knowledge  in  the 
*  spirit '  possessing  him. 

the  Holy  One  of  God.  The  term  '  holy  '  here  has  its  original 
and  characteristic  meaning  of  wholly'  '  belonging  to  God.'  For  the 
full  phrase,  compare  2  Kings  iv.  9,  '  This  is  an  holy  man  of  God' 
(Elisha)  ;  Ps.  cvi.  16,  '  Aaron  the  Lord's  holy  one.'  Here  it  seems 
meant  to  have  a  special  Messianic  reference,  as  in  John  vi.  6g. 
This  probably  was  how  Mark  understood  the  story  as  it  had 
reached  him,  though  the  man  may  have  meant  only  some  more 
general  recognition  of  exceptional  '  holiness  '  in  Jesus,  seeing  that 
he  would  share  the  popular  conception  of  the  expected  Messiah  ; 
and  this  hardly  suited  the  outward  conditions  and  the  seeming 
character  of  the  work  of  the  prophet  of  Nazareth. 

25.  rebuked.  The  word  is  translated  '  threatened '  by  WyclifTe, 
following  the  Vulgate.  In  the  N.  T.,  both  in  the  Synoptists  and 
elsewhere  (2  Tim.  v.  2  ;  Jude  9,  it  has  the  sense  of  chiding,  rating, 
charging  sharply  (^cf.  viii.  3o\ 

saying',  Hold  thy  peace,  and  come  out  of  him.  The  word 
rendered  '  hold  thj'  peace  '  means  literally  '  be  muzzled  '  as  in  i  Cor. 
ix.  9  ;  I  Tim.  v.  18.  It  is  a  strong  figure  of  enforced  silence.  The 
rebuke  (really  addressed  to  the  usurping  power  or  'spirit'  in  the 
man)  is  directed  against  two  things — the  outcry,  with  its  unsought 


no  ST.  MARK  1.  26.     P 

26  thy  peace,  and  come  out  of  him.     And  the  unclean 

testimony  to  himself,  and  •  the  invasion  of  the  man's  spirit  by  an 
alien  power '  (Swete). 

As  to  the  first  point,  Jesus  here,  and  throughout  the  gospels, 
silences  all  forms  of  testimony'  to  his  person  and  work  which 
would  tend  to  promote  the  wrong  sort  of  belief  in  himself  or  his 
mission,  an  unspiritual  belief,  based  on  mere  marvels  (like  a  demon's 
witness)  instead  of  personal  insight  into  his  spirit  and  the  moral 
authority  of  his  message.  Of  this  message  his  miracles  of  healing 
were  meant  by  him  to  be  recognized  as  visible  parables  and 
illustrations,  rather  than  '  proofs,'  in  keeping  with  Isa.  Ixi.  i  f., 
which  he  applied  to  himself  in  the  Synagogue  of  Nazareth  (^Luke 
iv.  18  f.)  and  virtually  also  in  his  answer  to  John's  doubts  as  to  his 
Messiahship  (due  to  the  absence  of  certain  attributes  of  '  power,' 
e.g.  his  passivity  in  view  of  John's  own  hard  lot),  in  Luke  vii. 
21-23  !  Matt.  xi.  4-6.  His  message  was  one  of  human  deliverance 
or  salvation  from  all  contrary  to  God's  will,  the  realization  of  the 
Divine  idea  of  manhood  as  destined  for  sonship  to  the  Heavenly 
King  and  Father.  Such  deliverance  was  primarily  of  the  soul, 
but  ultimately  of  the  whole  man,  including  bodily  health  or  whole- 
ness. 

This  leads  directly  to  the  second  ground  of  this  rebuke,  i.  e.  the 
indignant  pity  which  the  sight  of  the  bondage  of  man,  God's  son 
by  right,  alwaj's  evoked  in  Jesus,  the  Divinely  empowered  De- 
liverer or  Redeemer  of  man,  who  himself  is  God's  proper  vice- 
gerent on  earth  (Ps.  viii.  4-6).  It  was  as  sharing  manhood  in  this 
sense  that  he  called  himself  by  choice  '  the  Son  of  Man  '  ;cf.  ii. 
10  f.).  Such  was  his  feeling  towards  any  form  of  human  bondage, 
whether  sin  or  sickness.  But  most  shocking  of  all  to  Jesus  must 
have  been  the  bondage  of  man's  higher  nature  to  what  looked  like 
the  usurping  presence  of  an  alien  spirit,  in  place  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  shewing  itself  in  the  destruction  of  the  soul's  spiiitual  unity 
under  the  sway  of  the  '  kindly  light  of  Reason,'  firm  seated  on  its 
throne  as  God's  noblest  gift,  the  condi:ion  of  moral  responsibility 
and  true  sonship  to  God.  Hence  the  tone  of  emotional  severity  in 
the  command,  '  Silence  1     Come  out  of  him.' 

Appended  Note  on  the  Ittnitation  of  Jesus'  Knowledge. 

The  form  of  these  words  implies  Jesus' acceptance  of  or  acquies- 
cence in  the  current  belief  as  to  the  nature  of  the  cause  lying  behind 
certain  abnormal  mental  phenomena  (see  Matt.  xii.  27  ;  cf.  Mark  iii. 
23").  The  belief  not  only  prevailed  among  those  to  whom  he  owed 
his  mental  training,  as  among  the  Jews  generally,  but  was  also  the 
popular  theory  in  antiquity.  Indeed,  it  is  practically  the  inevitable 
theory  of  such  cases  for  mankind  in  all  ages  and  lands  at  a  certain 
stage  of  mental  development,  viz.  prior  to  the  '  scientific'  habit  of 


ST.  MARK  1.  26.     P  III 

observation  as  now  understood  and  practised  in  educated  circles, 
owing  mainly  to  the  whole  development  of  modern  experimental 
research  in  the  realm  of  Nature.  That  Jesus  must,  in  virtue  of  his 
exceptional  religious  consciousness,  have  needs  been  super- 
naturally  exempt  from  mental  limitations  of  everj-  kind,  even  those 
proper  to  the  contemporary  world  whose  general  intellectual  equip- 
ment (as  derived  from  instruction)  he  shared,  and  in  terms  of 
which  he  habituallj'  spoke,  is  an  assumption  we  have  no  warrant 
for  bringing  to  the  Gospel  narratives  and  imposing  on  them.  For 
it  is  manifest  that,  while  taking  up  a  highly  independent  attitude 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  contents  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures — and  at  times  also  a  critical  altitude  to  the 
Mosaic  Law  as  regards  the  adequacy  or  more  than  relative  authority 
of  parts  of  its  moral  teaching  (cf.  the  Great  Sermon  in  Matt,  and 
Luke,  and  the  Law  of  Divorce  in  Mark  x.  5  ff.) — Jesus  yet  adopted 
without  question  and  argued  from  the  current  traditional  views  of 
the  literary  and  historical  aspects  of  these  Scriptures.  Some, 
indeed,  would  claim  this  as  stamping  with  Divine  authority  such 
traditional  views,  e.  g.  the  assignment  of  Psalm  ex  to  David,  though 
that  theory  almost  certainly  did  not  go  back  to  its  origin,  but  was 
due  to  the  way  in  which  the  Scribes,  the  later  custodians  and 
editors  of  the  Sacred  Books,  interpreted  it.  But  the  more  probable 
view  is  that  Jesus  never  directed  his  independent  thought  to  any 
such  matters,  seeing  that  they  did  not  come  within  the  scope  of 
his  special  Messianic  vocation  as  revealcr  of  the  true  character  of 
God,  as  the  Heavenly  Father,  and  of  His  true  Covenant  or 
revealed  relations  with  men  as  His  earthly  children. 

Jesus  himself  never  claims  any  authorilj'  for  his  thought  or 
language  in  the  sphere  of  knowledge  which  depends,  and  for  man 
must  depend,  on  special  study,  according  to  methods  worked  out 
gradually  by  experience  and  deliberate  attention.  And  that  his 
proper  religious  aulhorit}',  such  as  he  does  claim,  was  not  com- 
promised b3^  his  knowledge  in  matters  of  human  science  being 
limited  to  that  of  his  time  and  circle,  is  borne  out  bj'  the  similar 
limitation  of  knowledge  which,  according  to  Mark  xiii.  32,  he  him- 
self acknowledges,  even  as  '  the  Son  '  of  God  on  earth,  in  the 
matter  of  the  exact  time  when  the  Kingdom  should  fullj*  appear. 
This  latter  point  is  one  far  more  closely  bound  up  with  Jesus' 
essential  Messianic  message  than  either  the  human  authorship  of 
sacred  writings  or  the  exact  cause  of  certain  mental  derangements. 
The  whole  question  of  the  full  reality  of  the  human  experience  of 
Him  in  whom  the  original  witnesses,  as  well  as  the  long  spiritual 
experience  of  Christendom  ever  since,  came  to  recognize  the  Son 
of  God  in  a  unique  sense,  albeit  he  shared  all  human  frailties  save 
sin  (see  Heb.  v.  7-9,  ii.  17  f.),  is  one  which  involves  certain 
difficulties  to  our  understanding  on  any  theory.  But  the  duty  of 
the  interpreter  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is  plain,  namely,  to  face  .t11 


112  ST.  MARK  1.  27.     P 

spirit,  » tearing  him  and  crying  with  a  loud  voice,  came 
out  of  him.  And  they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that 
they  questioned  among  themselves,  saying,  What  is  this  ? 
a  new  teaching  !  with  authority  he  commandeth  even  the 

*  Or,  convulsing 


the  facts  of  the  case  as  presented  in  experience,  both  then  and 
now. 

One  thing  may  here  be  added,  as  bearing  on  the  ancient 
phenomena  which  suggested  the  theory  of  demoniac  possession  to 
observers  generally,  viz.  that  in  certain  non-Christian  lands,  e.g. 
India  and  China  (^see  Appended  Note  on  Demonic  Possession), 
cases  of  mental  derangement  are  far  more  similar  to  those  described 
in  the  Gospels  than  are  those  in  our  midst  to-da}',  where  the  whole 
psychological  conditions  have  been  affected  by  Christian  ideas  and 
trainmg,  however  imperfect. 

26.  And  the  unclean  spirit,  tearing'  him  and  crying'  with  a 
loud  voice,  came  out  of  him.  Tlie  mental  and  nervous  struggle 
caused  by  Jesus'  word  of  authority  issued  in  convulsions,  accom- 
panied with  a  loud  cry,  ere  the  deliverance  was  effected.  The 
verb  rendered  '  tearing'  has  this  as  its  primary  sense,  but  means 
also  to  convulse. 

27.  And  they  were  all  amazed.  The  effect  on  the  people  is 
expressed  here  by  a  verb  which  is  used  in  the  N.  T.  onl}'  by  Mark, 
and  conveys  the  idea  of  astonishment  passing  into  awe  :  cf.  x.  32. 

questioned  among-  themselves  :  better  '  debated,'  cf.  xii.  28. 

saying,  what  is  this  ?  a  new  teaching  !  with  authority 
he  commandeth.  Moffatt,  in  his  new  translation,  divides  the 
words  rather  differently  :  'It's  new  teachmg  with  authority 
behind  it.' 

A  vivid  picture  of  amazement  breaking  into  excited  and  abrupt 
question  and  answer.  The  unwonted  style  of  this  teaching, 
already  alluded  to  in  v.  22,  is  still  in  their  thoughts,  but  now  as 
proving  its  authority  by  the  results  effected  by  Jesus'  Vv'ords  as 
commands,  put  upon  even  the  super-human  world  of  evil  spirits 
and  compelling  obedience.  A  fresh  kind  of  teaching  indeed.  The 
simple  directness  of  the  method  by  which  Jesus  asserted  his 
authority  and  effected  his  purpose  doubtless  deepened  the  sense 
of  his  power.  Exorcism  was  practised  among  the  Jews  (cf.  Matt, 
xii.  27  ;  Acts  xix.  13)  ;  but  usually  by  the  magical  use  of  sacred 
formulas  of  incantation,  not  by  direct  personal  command  in  which 
the  speaker's  own  personality  was  a  factor  of  moral  power.  Here 
was  one  who  used  n  i  such  laboured  arts,  but  simply  spoke,  and  it 
was  done  :  '  he  cast  out  the  demon  with  a  word  '  (Matt.  vlii.  16.). 


I 


ST.  MARK  1.  28.     P  113 

unclean  spirits,  and  they  obey  him.     And  the  report  of  28 
him  went  out  straightway  everywhere  into  all  the  region 
of  Galilee  round  about. 

28.  And  the  report  of  him,  &c.  From  that  hour  his  fame 
went  abroad  everywhere.  This  suggests  that  it  was  the  first 
work  of  the  kind  done  by  Jesus. 

into  all  the  region  of  Galilee.  The  words  may  mean  either 
'into  all  the  surrounding  region  of  Galilee  '  (Wycliffe,  see  Luke 
iv.  37),  or  '  into  all  the  region  bordering  on  Galilee  '  (Tyndale, 
Meyer,  cf.  Matt.  iv.  24).  The  former  seems  preferable  (cf.  39), 
especiall}'  as  it  is  only  with  iii.  8  that  we  first  have  explicit  trace 
of  the  effects  of  Jesus'  fame  outside  Galilee. 

Appended  Note  on  Demonic  Possession  in  the  Gospels. 

Dr.  A.  Menzies  {The  Earliest  Gospel,  1901,  pp.  68-70)  discusses 
this  subject  in  a  large  way.     The  following  are  his  main  points. 

'  The  story  just  dealt  with  is  one  of  a  number.  There  are  five 
detailed  cases  in  the  Gospels  in  which  Jesus  is  reported  to  have 
dealt  with  persons  labouring  under  possession  .  .  .  The  case  before 
us  is  too  deeply  embedded  in  the  earliest  narrative  of  the  life  of 
Christ  to  be  disposed  of  as  unhistorical  .  .  .  And  the  other  cases 
also  are  so  artless  and  so  lifelike  in  their  details  [some  being 
apparently  insignificant,  but  to  the  modern  expert  of  real  value  for 
scientific  diagnosis]  that  the}'  must  represent  real  occurrences. 

'The  persons  afiiicted  were  thought  to  be  possessed  by  a  spirit, 
or  by  a  number  of  spirits.  These  were  beings  .  .  .  capable  of 
entering  the  body  of  a  man  or  an  animal  and  leaving  it  again  to 
take  up  their  abode  in  another  (see  Matt.  xii.  43  ;  Mark  v.  9,  12  f., 
xvi.  9).  What  was  the  nature  of  these  cases  in  Palestine?  ...  In 
no  instance  do  we  know  all  the  symptoms  or  with  any  fulness  the 
patient's  history  .  .  .  The  facts  clearly  present  are  scanty,  and  are 
given  in  popular  rather  than  scientific  language.  Yet  something 
can  be  made  out. 

'  (i )  It  is  not  the  case  that  the  Jews  with  whom  Jesus  had  to  deal 
put  down  all  maladies  to  the  action  of  spirits,  so  that  they  had  no 
other  way  but  this  to  speak  of  ailments,  bodily  or  mental.  That 
is  true  of  primitive  therapeutics,  and  in  the  sacred  texts  of  Egypt 
and  of  Assj'ria  and  Babylonia  we  may. see  how  this  view  continued 
even  in  higher  civilizations.  Every  malady  was  thought  to  be  due 
to  a  spirit,  and  was  to  be  treated  by  exorcism.  .  .  .  The  Jews  of 
Christ's  time  were  not  at  this  stage  of  medical  science.  The 
Gospels  report  many  cases  of  sickness  which  were  not  ascribed  to 
demoniac  action,  and  we  hear  of  physicians  as  well  as  exorcists.  . . . 

'  (2)  In  some  of  the  cases  the  symptoms  of  known  ailments 
appear.     The  sudden  transitions  from  one  mood  to  another,  and 

I 


114  ST.  MARK  1.  29.     P 

29      And  straightway,  ^when  they  were  come  out  of  the 
synagogue,   they  came   into    the   house  of  Simon  and 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  read  when  he  was  come  out  of  the 
synagogue,  he  came  Ifc. 

the  excited  screaming  ejaculations,  suggest  hysteria.'  [Yet  it  is 
doubtful  if  in  any  case  the  symptoms  really  suggest  true  epilepsy.] 
'  Loss  of  the  proper  sense  of  one's  true  identity  is  one  feature  of 
lunacy  (which  is  associated  with  'possession'  in  Matt.  iv.  29,  cf. 
xvii.  15)  .  .  .  Where  there  is  obstruction  of  hearing  or  of  speech, 
and  the  demon  is  characterized  accordingly,  it  may  be  surmised 
that  a  modern  physician  would  have  regarded  these  as  mere 
accidents  of  the  disease,  and  would  have  noticed  other  symptoms 
not  so  striking  which  yet  lay  nearer  to  the  root  of  the  evil.'  [They 
are,  in  fact,  among  the  symptoms  of  certain  forms  of  hysteria.] 
'  Both  in  hysteria  and  in  epilepsy  the  theory  of  possession  is,  where 
medical  knowledge  is  not  advanced,  very  natural.  The  patient 
appears  to  have  come  under  the  power  of  another  agent  than  him- 
self. .  .  .  And  where  either  of  these  complaints  is  accompanied  by 
other  infirmities,  the  latter  will  also  be  put  down  to  the  action  of 
the  spirit,  which  will  thus  be  described  as  deaf  and  dumb,  or  weak. 
Mental  disorders  will  also  be  readily  ascribed  to  the  same  agenc3^ 
'  (3)  The  theory  has  to  be  noticed  that  ' '  possession  "  is  a  specific 
ailment  in  itself,  not  to  be  identified  with  any  other.'  It  relies  in 
part  on  modern  parallels.  '  The  phenomena  detailed  for  us  in 
the  Gospels  have  been  met  with,  and  are  met  with  to  this  day,  in 
various  parts  of  the  world  ;'  and  for  some  of  them  even  qualified 
psychologists  are  at  present  without  satisfactory  explanations. 
India  and  China  specially  afford  such  instances  ;  and  Dr.  Nevius, 
long  a  missionary  in  China,  '  argues  strongly,  and  with  con- 
siderable learning,  that  possession  by  spirits  really  exists  in 
China  at  the  present  day,  as  in  Galilee  in  our  Lord's  time,  and  in 
many  other  regions  and  ages.'  But  he  wrote  before  much  modern 
psychological  work,  on  '  dissociation'  or  dualism  of  personality  in 
particular,  had  taken  place.  Dr.  Menzies  himself  says  of  it,  that 
'it  is  not  perhaps  necessary  to  adopt  this  view.  Where  the 
belief  in  spirits  of  a  lower  order  is  active,  it  is  hard  to  set  limits  to 
the  effects  it  may  produce  in  human  thought  and  action. . . .  Thus  it 
is  not  strange  that  it  should"  act  with  special  strength  where  it  is 
united  with  morbid  physical  tendencies,  and  we  can  also  under- 
stand how  ideas  belonging  to  it  may  pass  quickly  from  mind  to 
mind  in  epidemic  fashion.  When  knowledge  increases  it  loses  its 
hold.' 

i.  29-31.      The  healing  of  Peters  Mother-in-law  (Matt.  viii.  14  f,  ; 
Luke  iv.  38  f.). 


ST.  MARK  1.  30-32.     P  115 

Andrew,   with  James  and  John.      Now  Simon's  wife's  30 
mother  lay  sick  of  a  fever ;  and  straightway  they  tell  him 
of  her:   and  he  came  and  took  her  by  the  hand,  and  31 
raised  her  up ;  and  the  fever  left  her,  and  she  ministered 
unto  them. 

And  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set,  they  brought  unto  32 
him  all  that  were  sick,  and  them  that  were  *^  possessed 

"■  Or,  demoniacs 

29.  tlie  house  of  Simon  and  Andrew.  As  Simon  was  a 
married  man,  the  house  may  have  been  his,  while  his  brother 
dwelt  with  him. 

30.  Simon's  wife's  motlier.  She  may  have  lived  with  her 
son-in-law.  That  Peter's  wife  was  still  alive  years  later,  and  ac- 
companied him  when  on  his  mission-work,  we  learn  from  i  Cor.  ix.  5. 

lay  sick  of  a  fever.  Luke  gives  a  more  detailed  description, 
'  holden  with  a  great  fever  '  (R.  V.).  Malarial  fever,  travellers 
tell  us,  is  rife  even  at  the  present  day  in  the  plain  in  which  Caper- 
naum was  situated. 

and  straigrhtway  they  tell  him  of  her.  It  was  natural  that 
they  should  at  once  appeal  to  him  who  had  just  wrought  so 
wonderful  a  cure  in  the  sj'nagogue. 

31.  and  she  ministered  unto  them.  So  immediate  and  com- 
plete was  her  cure.  There  was  nothing  of  the  lassitude  of 
ordinary  convalescence.  The  patient  was  able  at  once  to  go  about 
her  ordinary  domestic  duties,  such  as  helping  to  spread  the  board 
for  the  company. 

'•  32-34.  An  evening  spent  in  healing  (Matt.  viii.  16,  17  ;  Luke 
iv.  40,  41). 

32.  And  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set.  The  people  have 
been  keeping  themselves  in  check  till  all  risk  of  infringing  the 
Sabbath  law  is  past.  With  the  setting  of  the  sun  the  Sabbath  had 
ended.  Throwing  off  all  restraint,  they  now  crowd  to  the  house 
with  their  sick  of  many  kinds. 

and  them  that  were  possessed  with  devils  :  rather  'with 
demons.''  The  word  '  demon '  represents  the  Greek  daimon, 
a  term  with  an  interesting  history.  In  the  Homeric  poems  it 
usually  means  a  god.  By  this  time,  however,  it  mostly  meant 
a  'spirit'  of  an  order  superior  in  power  to  man's,  even  when 
disembodied.  It  was  adopted  by  the  Jews  with  a  sinister  mean- 
ing (as  synonymous  with  Satan's  angels,  cf.  Matt.  viii.  31). 
So  in  the  N.  T.,  usually  in  the  diminutive  form  daimonion,  as  in 
V.  34.     After  the  healing  of  this  class  of  case  in  the  Synagogue,  it 


ii6  ST.  MARK  1.  33-36.     P 

33  with  devils.     And  all  the  city  was  gathered  together  at 

34  the  door.  And  he  healed  many  that  were  sick  with 
divers  diseases,  and  cast  out  many  ^  devils ;  and  he 
suffered  not  the  devils  to  speak,  because  they  knew 
bhim. 

35  And  in  the  morning,  a  great  while  before  day, 
he  rose  up  and  went  out,  and  departed  into  a  desert 

36  place,  and  there  prayed.    And  Simon  and  they  that  were 

*  Gr.  demons 

*"  Many  ancient  authorities  add  to  be  Christ.     See  Luke  iv.  41. 


was  natural  that  others  should  be  brought  to  this  wonderful  '  exor- 
cist.' The  mention  of  sickness  and  possession,  side  by  side, 
shows  that  Mark  did  not  trace  sickness  generally  to  the  latter. 

33.  And  all  the  city  was  g'athered  together  at  the  door.  A 
picture  of  'the  flocking  up  to  the  door,'  'and  of  the  surging, 
moving  mass  before  it '  (Swete).  Capernaum  was  probably  of  no 
great  size,  cf.  v.  37. 

34.  And  he  healed  many  that  were  sick  with  divers  diseases, 
and  cast  out  many  devils  (demons).  Mark  simply  says  that  those 
healed,  of  both  classes  of  sufferers,  were  many — no  longer  mere 
isolated  instances,  as  already  recorded.  The  evidence  of  Jesus' 
Divine  mission  was  thus  growing  manifest.  Matthew  (and  Luke 
also  in  effect)  speaks  of  '  all  the  sick '  as  healed,  so  enhancing  the 
effect. 

and  he  suffered  not  the  devils  (demons)  to  speak,  because 
they  knew  him.  Jesus  put  the  ban  upon  their  utterance,  as  in 
the  case  above,  v.  25  (see  note  there).  He  would  not  have  his 
cause  influenced  by  such  testimony. 

(£»)   Wideiiiitg  mission  in  Galilee :  i.  35-45. 

i.  35-39.  After  prayer,  Jesus  begijis  his  first  preaching  tour 
(Luke  iv.  40-42  :  cf.  Matt.  iv.  23-25). 

The  experience  of  the  past  day's  ministry  suggested  wider  possi- 
bilities, for  which  Jesus  felt  the  need  of  the  guidance  and  strength 
whicli  prayer  was  wont  to  bring  him. 

35.  And  in  the  morning',  a  great  while  before  day.  So  early 
that  it  was  still  night,  as  the  original  implies. 

into  a  desert  place:  probably  one  of  those  bare,  solitary, 
and  barren  ravines  running  up  into  the  hills  behind  Capernaum. 

and  there  prayed  :  cf.  vi.  46.  This  casts  light  on  the  reason 
of  his  withdrawal,  and  no  doubt  also  of  his  choice  of  such  a  place. 
He  required  perfect  quiet  for  his  soul,  opportunity  for  reflection  on 


ST.  MARK  1.  37,  38.     P  117 

with  him  followed  after  him ;  and  they  fomid  him,  and  37 
say  unto  him,  All  are  seeking  thee.     And  he  saith  unto  38 
them.  Let  us  go  elsewhere  into  the  next  towns,  that  I 
may  preach  there  also ;   for  to  this  end  came  I  forth. 


the  principles  of  his  mission  in  the  light  of  his  fresh  experiences  (see 
undcrv.38),  as  preparation  for  the  wider  work  now  opening  before 
him.  '  No  Christology  is  true  which  makes  a  Christ  for  whom 
prayer  is  unnatural'  (H.  R.  Mackintosh). 

36.  And  Simon  and  they  that  were  with  him  followed  after 
him.  '  Simon  and  they  that  were  with  him  '  seems  to  reflect  the 
impression  on  Mark  as  Peter  told  the  story.  They  were  at  a  loss 
when  they  found  him  gone.  They  shewed  this  by  the  haste  with 
which  they  follotved  him  7tp.  The  word  is  a  strong  one,  implying 
pursuit.  Perhaps,  however,  they  knew  enough  of  his  favourite 
iiaunts  for  meditation  to  be  able  to  guess  where  to  seek  him. 

3"?.  and  say  unto  him,  All  are  seeking  thee.  The  result  of 
iiis  deeds  of  power  and  mercy.  The  disciples  could  not  understand 
the  Master's  failure  to  seize  the  opening  thus  afforded.  All 
Capernaum  was  now,  in  their  e3'es,  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand. 
But,  to  judge  from  later  analogies,  Jesus  felt  that  it  was  not  his 
message  but  his  miracles  that  filled  all  minds  there  (see  Matt.  xi. 
23  f.).  His  reply  to  their  expostulation  suggests  that  he  felt  the 
danger  of  the  light  in  wliich  his  mission  would  be  regarded — as  that 
of  a  mere  wonder-worker — if  he  stayed  on  longer  at  Capernaum 
after  the  events  of  yesterday.  In  any  case  it  had  had  its  chance 
of  responding  to  the  Call  of  the  Kingdom.  Other  places  too  had 
an  equal  claim  to  hear  his  '  Good  News.'  The  moment  had  come 
for  a  less  local  ministry. 

33.  into  the  next  towns  :  lit.  '  village-towns,'  probably  small 
country  towns  in  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  (cf.  vi.  54  ff.),  inter- 
mediate between  villages  and  cities.  Josephus  speaks  of  the 
thickly  planted  towns  and  the  multitude  of  populous  villages  in 
Galilee  (Jewish  War,  III.  iii.  2). 

came  I  forth.  It  was  with  a  view  to  such  wider  '  preaching ' 
of  his  Message — which  is  what  Jesus  himself  emphasized — that  he 
had  '  come  forth.'  The  phrase  is  the  same  in  Greek  as  the  'went 
out'  in  v.  35,  and  so  seems  to  refer  simply  to  his  having  left 
Capernaum — the  matter  his  hearers  were  full  of.  The  context, 
unlike  that  in  the  use  of  the  term  in  John  viii.  42,  xiii.  3,  does  not 
point  to  his  mission  generally,  still  less  to  mission  from  the  Father, 
which  would  here  require  a  more  explicit  phrase,  like  '  I  was  scut 
forth,'  which  actually  appears  in  the  parallel  account  in  Luke 
iv.  42  f. 


ii8  ST.  MARK   1.  39,  40.     P 

39  And  he  went  into  their  synagogues  throughout  all  Galilee, 
preaching  and  casting  out  «  devils. 

40  [XMk]  And  there  cometh  to  him  a  leper,  beseeching 

*  Gr.  demons 


39.  And  he  went  into  tlieir  synagogfues  .  .   .  preaching' : 

better  'went  preaching  in'  (as  Moffatt).  Thus  did  he  begin  his 
first  circuit  of  Galilee,  making  his  ministry,  thus  far,  a  synagogue 
ministry  in  the  main.  But  '  throughout  all  Galilee'  seems  hardly 
justified  by  what  precedes  and  follows  (40-45),  and  may  be  Mark's 
own  idea  (cf.  Luke's  'synagogues  of  Judaea,'  in  the  wide  sense, 
iv.  44). 

and  casting  out  devils  (demons).  Jesus'  primary  concern 
was  his  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  which  was 
apt  to  be  hindered,  as  he  had  probably  now  found  by  experience, 
by  popular  preoccupation  with  the  healing  of  bodily  ailments. 
But  he  was  still  ready  to  deliver  from  bondage  those  'possessed,' 
since  their  malady  was  primarily  mental  bondage,  and  disqualified 
them  from  heeding  the  preaching  itself. 

i.  40-45,  Healing  of  a  hpei;  and  its  wider  results  (Lk.  v.  12-16, 
Matt.  viii.  2-4).  Leprosy  appears  to  have  been  a  common  disease 
among  the  Jews  (Luke  iv.  27).  It  was  the  subject  of  minute  regu- 
lations in  the  Levitical  law  (Lev.  xiii),  in  which  several  varieties  of 
the  disease  are  recognized.  In  the  N.  T.  three  cases  are  reported — 
this  one,  the  ten  lepers  at  one  village  (Lukexviii.  12),  and  Simon 
the  leper  (Mark  xiv.  3).  These,  however,  are  only  selected 
instances  ;  cf.  Mark  x.  8,  xi.  5  ;  Luke  vii.  22. 

What  this  leprosy  exactly  was  is  difficult  to  determine.  Perhaps 
we  should  distinguish  between  the  leprosy  of  which  we  read  in 
the  Bible  and  the  disease  commonly  known  by  the  same  name  in 
ancient  and  modern  times.  The  latter,  which  at  least  in  one  of 
its  forms  may  be  identified  with  elephantiasis,  is  one  of  the  most 
terrible  maladies  known  in  India  and  in  Egypt,  which  got  into 
England  before  the  times  of  the  Crusades,  and  lingers  still  in  parts 
of  Europe.  The  former  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  skin-disease, 
sufficiently  loathsome  but  less  terrible  than  the  other;  cf.  the  case 
of  Naaman  (2  Kings  v).  The  name  '  leprosy '  may  have  been 
given,  as  appears  probable,  to  a  whole  class  of  diseases  with 
which  ritual  iinderuiHess  was  associated.  So  its  removal  is 
described  in  the  N.  T.  as  a  '  cleansing.'  The  ailment  in  view,  then, 
in  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  Biblical  passages,  may  have  been  a  skin- 
disease  known  as  psoriasis,  which  was  offensive  and  distressing, 
but  not  equally  incurable. 

40.  And  there  cometh  to  him  a  leper.     This  case  is  selected 
for  record  because  it  was  the  first  of  its  class,  or  because  of  the 


ST.  MARK    1.  41-43-      XMk  119 

him,  ■»  and  kneeling  down  to  him,  and  saying  unto  him,  If 
thou    wilt,    thou    canst    make   me   clean.      And    being  41 
moved  with  compassion,  he  stretched  forth   his  hand, 
and  touched  him,  and  saith  unto  him,  I  will ;  be  thou 
made  clean.    And  straightway  the  leprosy  departed  from  42 
him,  and  he  was  made  clean.     And  he  ^  strictly  charged  43 
him,  and  straightway  sent  him  out,  and  saith  unto  him, 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  and  kneeling  down  to  him 
^  Or,  sternly 


impression  made  and  the  change  it  occasioned  in  Jesus'  method 
(cf.  i.  45).  Luke  (v.  12-16)  brings  it  in  after  the  call  of  the  first 
disciples  ;  Matthew  (viii.  2-4I  after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

beseeching  h.inir,  and  kneeling  down  to  him"'.  The  earnest 
manner  of  the  suppliant  is  indicative  of  the  reality  of  his  confidence 
in  Jesus'  power,  if  only  he  could  persuade  the  Prophet  to  exercise 
it  in  his  behalf.     Hence  the  wording  of  his  appeal. 

If  thou  wilt.  He  was  not  sure  that  it  came  within  the 
Prophet's  purpose  or  mission  to  concern  himself  with  the  outcast 
class  of  lepers. 

moved  with  compassion.  The  touching  and  confiding  appeal 
invested  this  case  with  special  features  in  Jesus'  eyes,  so  that  his 
pity  led  him  to  act  not  only  as  petitioned  but  also  in  a  strikingly 
whole-hearted  way.  The  man  had  come  near,  in  spite  of  the 
Levitical  restrictions,  near  enough  to  be  reached  ;  and  Jesus,  dis- 
regarding possibly  the  physical  loathsomeness,  and  certainly  the 
ceremonial  uncleanness,  '  stretched  forth  his  hand,  and  touched 
him.'  'The  action  is  adapted  to  the  circumstances'  (Swete) : 
compare  i.  31.  The  touch  was  here  needed  to  assure  the  man's 
faith  of  Jesus'  willingness.  Jesus,  therefore,  first  touched  him  and 
then  spoke  the  healing  word.  And  the  result  was  instantaneous. 
43,44.  strictly  charged  him.  The  expression  is  a  very  strong 
and  picturesque  one,  used  of  the  snorting  of  horses,  but  in  the 
LXX  (Dan.  xi.  30:  cf.  Lam.  ii.  6)  also  for  strong  human  emotions, 
such  as  anger ;  thus  it  probably  denotes  a  visibly  and  audibly 
stern  tone  in  the  injunction  given. 

and  straightway  sent  him  out,  and  saith  unto  him,  See 
thou  say  nothing  to  any  man.  Why  this  immediate  dismissal, 
with  so  strong  an  injunction  to  silence?  Because,  if  the  man 
lingered  and  were  demonstrative,  he  might  be  the  occasion  of 
creating  a  superficial  popular  enthusiasm  among  the  people,  like 
that  which  had  perhaps  already  caused  Jesus  heart-searchings  after 
the  day  of  manifold  healings  at  Capernaum,  but  in  any  case  before 


I20  ST.  MARK    1.  44,  46.      XMk 

44  See  thou  say  nothing  to  any  man :  but  go  thy  way, 
shew  thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  for  thy  cleansing  the 
things  which  Moses  commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto 

45  them.     But  he  went  out,  and  began  to  pubhsh  it  much, 

his  preaching  tour  of  i.  39  had  closed.  On  the  former  occasion 
his  redeeming  pity  had  gone  forth  without  restraint,  when  first 
confronted  by  the  appeal  of  human  need  on  a  large  scale  ;  but  he 
had  since  seen  reason  to  change  the  method  in  which  his  love  for 
the  Father's  lost  children  might  best  work  for  their  true  good — 
preparedness  for  the  Heavenly  Kingdom  which  it  was  his  to  pro- 
claim as  'at  hand,'  and  thereby  to  bring  in.  Accordingly  he  now 
wished  to  avoid  all  that  tended  directly  to  emphasize  the  physical 
and  miraculous  aspect  of  his  mission,  at  the  expense  of  the  moral 
and  spiritual.  But  the  leper's  exceptional  appeal  had  overruled, 
so  to  speak,  this  new  principle  of  action,  and  threatened  to  add  to 
the  sort  of  reputation  which  he  shunned,  and  so  to  affect  his  deeper 
work  harmfully.  The  incident  also  furnishes  a  transition  to  the 
subject  of  the  next  section,  viz.  Jesus'  attitude  towards  the  Mosaic 
Law. 

but  g'o  thy  way,  shew  thyself  to  the  priest :  rather  '  but 
away,'  i.  e.  to  distant  Jerusalem.  The  cure  was  not  held  perfectly 
complete  till  the  ceremonial  disabilit}'  and  the  social  ban  were  re- 
moved. This  was  done  by  the  priest,  to  whom  it  belonged  to 
pronounce  clean  or  unclean.      See  Lev.  xiii,  xiv,  esp.  xiii.  49. 

offer  for  thy  cleansing'  the  thing's  •which  Moses  com- 
niauded.  The  man  was  not  to  disregard  the  Hebrew  law,  but  to 
seek  the  ceremonial  purification  in  the  way  it  prescribed  (Lev.  xiv. 
1-30).  Jesus  had  ignored,  in  the  cause  of  mercy,  the  Levitical 
rule  of  not  touching  a  leper  ;  but  where  a  higher  law  did  rot 
hinder,  the  Mosaic  Law  was  not  to  be  disobeyed.  This  was  his 
attitude  throughout. 

for  a  testimony  unto  them.  To  whom  ?  To  the  priests,  as 
if  the  work  would  be  a  witness  to  them  that  a  Prophet,  perhaps 
Messiah  himself,  was  among  them  ?  Hardly-.  To  people  generally  ? 
Not  if  the  miracle  just  wrought  is  in  view.  Rather  the  words 
follow  closely  on  what  Moses  prescribed,  viz.  '  as  witness  to  them,' 
i.  e.  to  Israel  at  large,  that  the  leper  was  really  cleansed.  They 
are  perhaps  Mark's  explanatory  addition  for  the  sake  of  his  readers 
(cf.  his  comment  in  ii.  15). 

45.  and  began  to  publish  it  much.  This  shews  the  need  of 
Jesus  adopting  a  stern  manner  in  order  to  anticipate  this  very 
thing.  The  man  could  not  contain  himself,  and  did  what  his 
feelings  prompted.  The  result  was  that  his  Healer's  work  was 
interfered  with;  he  could  no  mori ,  for  a  time,  preach  in  towns 
(with    their    synagogues)    for  fear  of  excited    crowds  eager  for 


ST.  MARK  1.  45.     XMk  121 

and  to  spread  abroad  the  ** matter,  insomuch  that  ''Jesus 
could  no  more  openly  enter  into  <^  a  city,  but  was  without 
in  desert  places  :  and  they  came  to  him  from  every 
quarter. 

*  Gr.  7wrd  ^  Gr.  he  "  Or,  the  city 

marvels,  but  had  to  betake  himself  to  '  desert  places.'  Even  there 
the  people  kept  coming  to  him.     A  '  mass  '  movement  begins. 

(c)  Some  typical  incidents:  ii    i — iii.  6. 

The  work  of  Jesus  among  the  common  people  ere  long  attracted 
the  serious  attention  and  criticism  of  the  synagogue  authorities, 
the  Scribes  and  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  to  which  they  mostly 
belonged.  The  incidents  which  now  follow  are  bound  together 
by  this  link  rather  than  by  temporal  or  local  unity.  The  series  in 
fact  tells  by  typical  examples  the  story  of  the  development  of  tlie 
breach  between  the  official  Synagogue  and  Jesus,  which  probably 
spread  over  several  months.  Yet  there  is  a  progress  in  the  degree 
of  his  critics'  hostility  which  may  point  to  something  like  an  his- 
torical order.  *  At  first  they  merely  make  silent  criticisms  (ii.  6  i  ; 
then  they  question  the  disciples  Ui.  16)  ;  later,  they  challenge 
Jesus  Himself  (ii.  18,  24)  ;  and  later  still,  they  resolve  to  get  rid 
of  Him  (iii.  6).  The  theme  continues  into  the  following  section. 
The  arrangement  of  these  incidents  is  .  .  .  not  necessarily  chrono- 
logical '  (H.  G.  Wood).  The  incidents  probably  belonged  for  the 
most  part  to  the  common  Apostolic  tradition  (the  X  already  re- 
ferred to  under  i.  16-20),  and  not  only  to  Peter's  special  form  of 
it — a  fact  which  appears  in  the  wording,  here  and  there,  of  the 
parallel  sections  in  the  other  two  Synoptic  Gospels  (e.g.  Luke 
V.  17  follows  another  form  of  X,  also  used  by  the  Evangelist).  It 
is  quite  possible  that  Mark's  form  of  X  is  here  at  times  even 
further  from  the  historical  order  than  Matthew's.  The  latter 
seems  to  have  known  most  of  these  incidents  (ii.  1-22)  as  grouped 
together  in  one  series  (Matt.  ix.  1-17)— and  that  at  a  later  point 
than  in  Mark,  viz.  on  Jesus'  return  from  a  voyage  to  the  East  of 
the  Lake — and  the  two  others,  bearing  on  the  Sabbath,  as  a  second 
group  (xii.  i-i4\  in  quite  another  context  (where  the  immediate 
sequel,  in  15  ff.,  is  like  that  in  Mark  iii.  7-12),  viz.  just  before  the 
charge  of  collusion  with  Beelzebub  (  =  Mark  iii.  20  ff.).  In  Mark 
the  controversy  is  traced  continuously  through  certain  typical 
episodes,  until  it  reaches  the  acute  phase  of  hostility  described  in 
iii.  6,  where  it  passes  into  actual  plans  to  do  away  with  the  un- 
orthodox and  religiously  revolutionary  Prophet  of  Nazareth.  A 
later  stage  of  what  is  essentially  the  same  controversy  and  struggle, 


122  ST.  MARK  2.  1-3.     XMk 

2      [X^k]  And  vvhen  he  entered  again  into  Capernaum 
after  some  days,  it  was  noised  that  he  was  *  in  the  house. 

2  And  many  were  gathered  together,  so  that  there  was  no 
longer  room  for  them,  no,  not  even  about  the  door  :  and 

3  he  spake  the  word  unto  them.    And  they  come,  bringing 

^  Or,  at  home 


now  transferred  from  provincial  Galilee  to  Jerusalem  —  the  home  of 
the  central  authorities  of  Judaism — appears  in  the  closing  chapters 
of  the  Synoptics  ;  see  Mark  xi.  15  ff.,  especially  xii.  12. 

Criticism  from  religious  leaders  begrinning. 

ii.  I -12.  The  Paralytic  at  Capernaum  (Matt.  ix.  1-8  ;  Luke  v. 
17-26). 

The  event  recorded  in  this  paragraph  has  an  important  position 
in  the  narrative.  It  marks  the  point  at  which  Jesus  began  to 
encounter  criticism.  So  far  his  deeds  and  words  had  won  a  quick 
response  from  the  people.  His  popularity  was  great,  though  it 
did  not  rest  on  a  true  recognition  of  the  nature  of  his  preaching, 
and  so  cut  across  his  intended  course.  From  this  time,  however, 
he  has  to  face  a  series  of  collisions  with  the  people's  religious 
guides. 

1.  And  when  he  entered  again  into  Capernaum.  The  words 
'  after  an  interval  of  days '  place  this  episode  some  time  after  his 
former  activity  there,  possibly  a  month  or  two  after  i.  16-39. 
Matthew,  which  has  this  episode  in  a  later  context,  there  calls 
Capernaum  '  his  own  citj'.' 

it  was  noised  that  he  was  in  (the)  house  :  lit.  in  (a'',  house, 
indoors,  or  at  home.  '  Men  were  heard  to  say  "  He  is  indoors"  ' 
(Swete\  naming  the  place.  It  is  not  said  where  ;  but  the  phrase 
rather  suggests  his  own  home,  whither  there  now  gathered  in 
considerable  numbers  those  already  attracted  to  his  message. 

2.  no  longer  room  for  them,  no,  not  even  about  the  door. 
Mark's  description  of  the  eagerness  of  the  people,  still  under  the 
spell  of  his  person  and  work,  is  very  graphic.  He  lets  us  see  the 
excited  people  hurrying  to  the  house  at  the  news,  pressing  in 
with  the  freedom  which  is  allowed  only  in  the  East,  filling  the 
room  in  a  trice,  then  about  the  house-door  (which  no  doubt  opened 
direct  upon  the  street,  cf.  xi.  4),  and  even  beyond. 

spake  the  word :  lit.  '  was  engaged  in  speaking  the  word.' 
Jesus  was  m  a  private  room,  not  in  the  synagogue,  and  was  speak- 
ing simply  and  informally. 


ST.  MARK  2.  4,  6.     XMk  123 

unto  him  a  man  sick  of  the  palsy,  borne  of  four.     And  4 
when  they  could  not  ''■come   nigh   unto   him    for   the 
crowd,   they   uncovered   the   roof  where  he  was :    and 
when  they  had  broken  it  up,  they  let  down  the  bed 
whereon  the  sick  of  the  palsy  lay.     And  Jesus  seeing  5 
their  faith  saith  unto  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  ^Son,  thy 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  read  bring  him  unto  him 
^  Gr.  Child 


3.  a  man  sick  of  the  palsy :  a  paralytic. 

borne  of  four :  that  is,  on  a  light  pallet  or  mattress-bed  (as  the 
word  implies)  carried  by  two  pairs  of  bearers  (cf.  vi.  56).  The 
number  of  bearers  is  given  only  by  Mark. 

4.  they  uncovered  the  roof:  lit.  '  they  unroofed  the  roof,'  i.  e. 
removed  the  tiles.  The  roof  of  a  house  in  Palestine  was  easily 
reached  by  an  outer  staircase,  cf.  xiii.  15.  (Allen  does  not  accept 
Wellhausen's  suggestion  that  '  uncovered '  is  a  wrong  rendering 
of  an  Aramaic  word  meaning  '  brought  him  up  on.') 

and  when  they  had  broken  it  up,  they  let  down  the  bed. 
How  is  this  to  be  understood  ?  The  phrase  '  broken  it  up  '  is  a 
strong  one,  meaning  '  made  a  hole;'  lit.  'dug  it  out.'  The  roof 
of  a  Jewish  house  of  this  kind  might  consist  of  beams  covered  with 
poles  and  brushwood,  and  overlaid  with  earth  and  gravel.  In 
Galilee  to-day  'the  roofs  are  made  with  beams  so  arranged  as 
easily  to  be  turned  over  when  bent  by  the  weight  of  the  reeds  and 
rubble.  It  would  be  enough  to  remove  a  beam,  in  order  to  secure 
a  sufficient  aperture'  (a  modern  observer  quoted  by  Lagrange).  It 
was  possible,  therefore,  to  break  a  hole  big  enough  to  let  the  man 
down  through  it,  as  here  described. 

5.  And  Jesus  seeing  their  faith.  The  faith  of  the  paralytic's 
friends  is  not  here  distinguished  from  the  sufferer's  own  ;  both  are 
meant,  though  the  former  only  was  shewn  directly  in  action. 

saith  unto  the  sick  of  the  palsy,  Son,  thy  sins  are  for- 
given. *  Son,'  '  child,'  a  familiar,  affectionate  term,  used  of  a  dis- 
ciple, and  here  a  word  of  encouragement  to  the  sufferer.  Not  '  be 
forgiven,' as  in  the  A.V.,  but  'are (being)  forgiven.'  Jesus  speaks 
first  of  forgiveness.  What  is  the  point  of  this  ?  Not  that  he  meant 
by  the  forgiveness  only  the  cure  itself,  the  relief  of  the  man  from 
the  physical  consequences  of  'some  sin  affecting  the  nervous 
organization  '  (Gould).  That  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  force  of  the 
word  used  here,  which  expresses  the  removal  of  guilt.  Was  it 
that  Jesus  saw  in  his  face  more  than  faith  that  the  Healer  could 
cure  his  malady — some  wistful  trace  of  the  sense  of  past  sins  in 


124  ST.  MARK  2.  6.     X^k 


6  sins  are  forgiven.     But  there  were  certain  of  the  scribes 


the  lieart  of  the  sufferer?  In  any  case  Jesus  acts  in  accordance 
with  Jewish  ideas  of  the  close  connexion  between  sin  and  sick- 
ness (cf.  iii.  lo,  'plagues'),  and  so  of  forgiveness  and  heahng  (cf. 
James  v.  15).  'There  is  no  sick  man  healed  of  his  sickness,'  said 
the  Rabbis,  '  until  all  his  sins  have  been  forgiven  him  '  (Schottgen, 
cited  by  Swete).  'The  healing,'  then,  as  Montefiore  says  (setting 
aside  other  views  that  have  recently  gained  some  vogue)  '  was  in- 
tended from  the  first  to  follow  rapidly  upon  the  proclamation  of 
forgiveness.'  Jesus  begins  with  the  spiritual  side  because  this  is 
the  one  which  he  has  most  at  heart,  but  which  others  tended  to 
overlook  in  their  concern  for  bodily  healing  and  in  the  wonder 
which  his  working  of  it  aroused.  He  first  directs  attention  to  the 
chief  boon  which  his  Gospel  confers,  that  to  the  soul.  Thus  tlie 
words  are  continuous  with  Jesus'  attitude  in  the  last  episode. 

G.  certain  of  the  scribes  sittings  there —sitting,  as  those  most 
worthy  of  honour.  According  to  the  form  of  the  story  known  10 
I, like,  through  another  line  of  tradition  than  the  Marcan,  the  Scribes 
in  question  were  not  only  the  local  ones  of  the  city  (who  under 
the  circumstances  so  exactly  described  by  Mark  in  ii.  i  f.,  following 
on  i.  45,  are  alone  likely  to  have  been  on  the  ppot),  but  included 
some  from  all  over  Galilee,  and  even  from  Juda;a  and  Jerusalem. 
That  is  unlikely  at  this  tiMie,  for  it  antedates  the  stage  in  Jesus' 
ministry'  thus  implied,  one  of  effects  even  outside  Galilee. 

There  is, moreover,  nothing  inMark's  narrative(seeunderv.i2)  — 
nor  in  Matt.  ix.  i  ff.,  which  seems  based  in  part  on  another  form 
of  X  (where  the  incident  came  later) — to  suggest  that  the  scribes 
in  question  were  there  for  purposes  of  criticism  rather  than  curio- 
sity or  perplexed  inquiry  touching  a  seeming  prophet,  '  whose 
aim  would  '  at  first  '  appear  to  them  to  be  the  same  as  their  own  : 
he  too  was  seeking  to  get  the  people  ready  for  the  Kingdom  of 
God  '  (Menzies).  Had  Jesus  already  aroused  general  suspicion 
among  the  scribes  of  Galilee,  he  would  hardly  have  been  able  to 
preach  in  the  synagogues  at  large  (as  stated  in  i.  39)  ;  for  this 
could  only  be  with  the  permission  of  the  rulers  of  synagogues, 
who  would  be  largely  influenced  by  the  attitude  of  the  scribes  or 
professional  teachers  of  the  Law.  '  But  Jesus  differed  too  radi- 
cally from  the  scribes  in  spirit  and  method  to  allow  '  any  such  state 
of  things  'to  continue  long.  He  was  not  bound  by  their  rules, 
and  he  was  guided  by  convictions  which  they  did  not  share.'  It 
was  here  and  now  that  the  latent  incompatibility  of  their  ideals 
first  came  to  expression  in  a  marked  manner  ;  and  the  incident 
was  remembered  by  Peter,  and  spoken  of  by  him  in  his  teaching, 
largely  for  that  very  reason.  It  marked  an  epoch  in  his  Master's 
ministry  of  the  Gospel,  when   mere  doubt  and  vigilance  on  the 


ST.  MARK  2.  7-9.     XMk  125 

sitting  there,  and  reasoning  in  their  hearts,  Why  doth  7 
this  man  thus  speak?  he  blasphemeth  :  who  can  forgive 
sins  but  one,  even  God  ?     And  straightway  Jesus^  per-  8 
ceiving  in  his  spirit  that  they  so  reasoned  within  them- 
selves, saith  unto  them.  Why  reason  ye  these  things  in 
your  hearts  ?    Whether  is  easier,  to  say  to  the  sick  of  the  9 

part  of  the  religious  authorities  passed  over  into  definite  suspicion 
and  criticism. 

reasoning'  in  their  hearts.  They  said  nothing,  but  sat  in 
shocked  surprise,  inwardly  commenting  on  this  daring  declaration 
of  the  popular  Prophet. 

*7.  he  blasphemeth.  He  had  simply  said,  'Thy  sins  are  for- 
given thee.'  But  they  treated  that  declaration  as  blasphemy,  that 
is  to  say,  a  kind  of  speech  hurtful  to  the  honour  of  God.  In  so 
taking  his  words,  they  showed  a  certain  captious  readiness  to  see 
in  them  an  extravagant  personal  claim,  going  beyond  that  of  dele- 
gated or  prophetic  'authority'  to  speak  in  God's  name  the  Divine 
forgiveness  of  the  man's  sins.  This  was  a  function  proper  enough 
in  the  Messiah. 

8.  perceivingf  in  (or  by)  his  spirit.  The  word  '  perceiving ' 
here  denotes  full  knowledge  (cf,  i  Cor.  xiii.  12).  His  spirit  read 
their  minds  '  like  a  book.' 

9.  Whether  is  easier,  to  say  ...  or  to  say.  He  places  two 
utterances  over  against  each  other,  as  authoritative  words  in 
God's  name,  and  asks  them  which  is  easier  to  utter — for  one  who 
can  utter  either.  The  key  to  his  meaning  is  given  by  the  way  he 
continues  in  the  next  verse.  '  But,'  be  the  answer  what  it  may, 
'that  ye  may  know,  &c.'  (see  below).  Jesus  really  means  that  he 
who  can  say  the  one  (effectively)  can  say  the  other  also,  as  far  as 
concerns  authority  or  right  to  do  so.  The  utterances  are  in  them- 
selves practically  on  a  level,  then,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
justice  of  the  criticism  passing  through  the  thoughts  of  these 
scribes,  which  was  in  fact  a  challenge  of  Jesus'  virtual  claim  to 
be,  not  God  or  God's  equal,  but  God's  Prophet,  with  authority  as 
such  to  speak  in  His  name.  For  each  involves  Divine  mission 
and  sanction  :  but  only  the  words  of  bodily  healing  admit  of 
verification  by  them  and  others,  as  sovereign  effects  in  the  visible 
sphere. 

This  is  the  general  sense  of  the  argument,  which  Jesus  proceeds 
to  act  upon,  so  giving  the  doubters  objective  means  o^  judging  for 
themselves,  and  so  '  knowing'  whether  he  had  also  Divine  authority 
behind  his  words  when  assuring  the  paralytic  that  his  deeper, 
spiritual  malady  was  then  and  there  met  by  the  Divine  forgiveness 
of  sins. 


126  ST.  MARK  2.  lo,  ii.     X^k 

palsy,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven ;  or  to  say,  Arise,  and  take 

0  up  thy  bed,  and  walk  ?     But  that  ye  may  know  that  the 
Son  of  man  hath  '•■power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (he 

1  saith  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy),  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise, 

*  Or,  authority 

There  still  remains,  however,  the  question  whether  Jesus  had 
in  mind  from  the  first  to  heal  the  paralytic's  bodily  malady,  as 
well  as  his  spiritual  one,  or  was  led  on  to  do  this  mainly  in  order  to 
prove  the  validity  of  his  confident  assurance  of  forgiveness,  already 
given  to  the  tacit  appeal  of  faith  in  the  sufferer  and  his  friends. 
The  former  alternative  seems  preferable,  as  we  can  hardly  imagine 
Jesus  originally  intending  to  withhold  the  physical  boon  (lower 
though  it  was  in  value)  for  which  the  faith  to  which  he  responded 
had  actually  looked.  This  being  so,  we  may  further  infer  from 
Jesus'  putting  the  two  utterances  in  question  as  alternatives,  that 
he  had  not  intended  at  first  to  add  the  latter  to  the  former  and 
more  essential  one,  dealing  with  the  soul,  but  to  leave  the  sick 
man  to  discover  for  himself  that  the  greater  boon  had  brought 
with  it  also  the  lesser.  As  for  the  specific  charge  of  '  blasphemy' 
latent  in  his  critics'  thoughts,  Jesus  ignores  it,  presumably  as 
being  simply  an  extreme  way  of  putting  their  fundamental  objec- 
tion to  his  virtual  claim  to  speak  for  God  with  authority — such  an 
authority  as  might  even  in  their  eyes  well  belong  to  a  true  Prophet, 
if  God  so  willed  it. 

10.  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.  '  Power '  here  means  authority  ; 
and  '  on  earth '  (in  contrast  with  the  authority  of  God  in  heaven) 
defines  it  as  an  authority  committed  to  'the  Son  of  Man,'  as  God's 
human  representative  on  earth  (comp.  the  comment  by  the  crowds 
in  Matt.  ix.  8,  who  '  glorified  God  who  had  given  such  authority 
to  men  ').  The  question  was  about  forgiveness,  a  moral  act  imply- 
ing authority.  They  challenged  his  right  to  forgive  sins.  He 
brings  the  matter  at  once  to  a  test  which  they  could  apply,  by 
asserting  his  possession  of  another  form  of  authority  and  Divine 
power.  If  open,  unmistakable  results  prove  him  to  have  that 
power,  they  could  the  less  doubt  his  authority  in  a  region  where 
claims  could  not  be  attested  by  visible  effects. 

Here  we  have  the  first  occurrence  of  the  title  'the  Son  of  Man' 
in  Mark's  Gospel.  From  this  point  we  meet  it  often.  As  to  its 
import,  see  Appended  Note  on  '  the  Son  of  Man,'  below. 

11.  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise:  'Rise,  I  tell  you'  (Moffatt), 
brings  out  the  emphasis  better.  The  Evangelist's  sudden  change 
in  the  person  addressed  is  grammatically  awkward,  but  vivid  and 
effective. 


I 


ST.  MARK  2.  i2.     X.^  127 

take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house.    And  he  arose,  : 
and  straightway  took  up  the  bed,  and  went  forth  before 
them   all ;    insomuch    that   they  were  all  amazed,  and 
glorified  God,  saying,  We  never  saw  it  on  this  fashion. 

12.  they  were  all  amazed.  The  man  went  forth  '  before  all,' 
and  '  all '  were  profoundly  impressed  {lit.  '  were  beside  them- 
selves with  wonder'),  confessing  the  hand  of  God  in  the  event. 
'  All  '  seems  by  implication  to  include  even  the  scribes.  If  so, 
Mark  cannot  mean  to  suggest  in  v.  6  an)   fixed  hostility. 

Appended  note  on  '  the  Son  of  Man.' 

The  N.T.  says  nothing  of  the  origin  of  this  title,  nor  does  it 
explain  its  meaning.  Ihere  is  much  diversity  of  opinion  therefore 
on  the  subject,  and  it  cannot  be  said,  even  after  all  the  patient 
inquiry  expended  on  it,  that  things  are  quite  clear. 

With  respect  to  the  use  of  the  term,  there  is  marked  difference 
on  the  whole  between  the  O.  T.  and  the  N.  T.,  yet  our  safest 
approach  to  what  appears  a  characteristic  usage  of  Jesus  himself 
is  through  the  O.  T.,  in  the  first  instance  at  least.  In  the  O.  T. 
the  phrase  '  son  of  man'  is  often  simply  a  synonj'm  for  man — a 
member  of  the  human  family — and  as  a  rule  with  special  reference 
to  the  frailty  and  dependence  of  man  (Num.  xxiii.  19  ;  Job  xxv.  6, 
XXXV.  8  ;  Ps.  cxliv.  3  ;  Isa.  li.  12,  &c.).  Yet  this  is  far  from  being 
a  full  account  of  the  matter.  In  Ezekiel  it  is  used  over  ninety 
times  as  the  name  by  which  the  Prophet  is  addressed  :  but  this  does 
not  help  us  much  to  its  definition,  though  it  suggests  the  notion  of 
man  as  related  to  God,  even  while  contrasted  with  Him, 

More  to  the  point  is  the  evidence  of  Ps.  viii.  While  dwelling 
on  the  insignificance  of  'the  son  of  man,'  in  the  sense  of  'man' 
or  humanity  (as  we  should  say)  as  a  part  of  visible  nature,  it 
sets  in  the  boldest  contrast  to  this  his  marvellous  difference  also, 
according  to  the  Divine  ideal  of  manhood,  from  all  else  on  earth, 
by  way  of  capacity  to  rule  over  the  other  earthly  '  works  of  God's 
hands.'  So  much  so,  that  his  true  kinship  is  rather  with  the 
Divine  nature  itself  {Elohhn)  ;  for  he  is  by  God's  appointment 
'but  little  lower  '  in  spiritual  quality  than  his  Maker,  and  is  thereby 
in  destiny  '  crowned  with  glorj^  and  honour  '  (v.  4  ff.).  Here  this 
Psalm  points  back  to  the  idea  of  manhood  involved  in  Gen.  i-ii, 
where  we  have  a  forecast  of  man's  future  victory  over  the  evil 
power  working  against  the  realization  of  his  high  heritage  of 
Divine  Sonship,  in  the  person  of  '  the  seed  of  the  woman  ' — which 
is  practically  the  same  in  idea  as  '  the  son  of  man.'  Then  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel  appears  the  description  of  'one  like  unto  a  son  of 
man'  who  receives  'dominion  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all 


128  ST.  MARK  2.  12.     XM^ 

the  peoples,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  him  '  (vii.  13,  I4\ 
Here  is  meant  God's  own  People  of  Israel  as  '  the  saints  of  the 
Most  High,'  sharing  His  prerogative  of  reigning  on  earth,  in 
virtue  of  His  reign  within  them  as  the  immediate  sphere  of  His 
will  and  power.  His  realm  or  Kingdom  is  symbolized  by  the 
human  form,  as  distinct  from  that  of  various  animals,  as  though 
God's  People  only  realized  the  true  idea  of  humanity  in  its  spiritual 
aspect. 

'  The  Son  of  Man,'  then,  on  O.  T.  lines  would  naturally  be 
one  who  embodied  representatively  in  himself  the  full  ideal  destiny 
of  God's  people.  Seeing  that  Jesus  did  this  as  the  '  Servant  of  the 
Lord  '  of  Isa.  liii.,  so  might  he  also  as  '  the  Son  of  Man.' 

In  the  N.  T.  it  is  Jesus'  own  chosen  designation  of  himself. 
With  the  exceptions  of  one  occurrence  in  Acts  (vii.  56),  the  quota- 
tion in  Heb.  ii.  6 — clearly  applying  Ps.  viii.  4  f.  to  Jesus  as  Christ — 
and  virtually  two  passages  in  the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  i.  13,  xiv.  14), 
it  is  found  only  in  the  Gospels ;  and,  with  the  exception  of 
Stephen's  case  in  the  passage  in  Acts,  and  the  virtual  occurrences 
in  the  visions  of  John,  it  is  never  used  directly  of  Jesus  but  bj' 
himself.  It  occurs  some  eighty  times  in  the  Gospels,  representing 
about  half  as  many  distinct  occasions  (but  see  end  of  the  note). 
Its  application  also  is  varied.  Sometimes  it  is  used  with 
reference  to  Christ's  life  or  ministry  on  earth,  particularly  his 
humble  human  estate  or  his  sufferings  ;  at  other  times  with  special 
regard  to  his  exaltation,  his  glory,  his  return.  Sometimes  it  is 
used  in  connexion  with  prerogatives  exercised  when  on  earth — such 
as  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  lordship  over  the  Sabbath;  at  other 
times,  in  connexion  with  the  prerogative  of  judgement  in  the 
future. 

As  to  its  origin,  it  appears  sufficiently  clear  that  the  title  goes 
back  to  the  figure  of  the  'one  like  unto  a  son  of  man'  seen  in  the 
Danielic  vision,  who  is  to  wield  an  authority  second  only  to  God's, 
as  the  sovereign  of  an  everlasting  and  universal  dominion.  This 
figure,  which  originally  represented  the  people  of  Israel  in  their 
ideal  character  and  victorious  destiny,  came  to  be  understood  of 
tiie  Messiah.  Thus  in  the  non-canonical  Jewish  writings,  especi- 
ally in  that  section  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  which  is  known  as  the 
'  Parables '  or  '  Similitudes,'  '  the  Son  of  Man  '  is  a  designation  of 
the  Messiah,  and  of  the  Messiah  in  the  character  of  a  superhuman 
being  with  no  human  history,  seated  on  the  throne  beside  God 
'the  Head  of  Days,'  and  acting  as  judge  of  men.  Jesus'  own  use, 
liowever,  is  deeply  rooted  in  the  representation  of  '  the  Son  of 
Man'  in  Ps.  viii;  and  in  his  later  use  of  it  (from  Markix.  12  onwards) 
it  owed  much  also  to  Isaiah's  picture  of  the  suffering  'servant  of 
the  Lord.' 

As  regards  its  meaning,  one  of  the  questions  specially  discussed 
is  whether  it  is  a  Messianic  title  in  the  proper  sense,  distinctly  and 


ST.  MARK  2.  12.     XMk  129 

definitely  so  used  by  Jesus  himself  and  so  understood  by  others. 
The  way  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  Matt.  xvi.  13;  the  fact  that 
Jesus  disclosed  his  Messiahship  only  very  gradually  ;  and  the 
further  circumstance  that  the  title  occurs  here  and  in  ii.  28  before 
Peter  and  the  Apostles  reached  the  daring  conviction  at  Caesarea 
Philippi  that  Jesus  was  actually  the  Christ  ;  all  these  things  point 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not  a  generally  current  and  well- 
understood  Messianic  name,  at  least  not  among  the  people  at  large, 
and  that  it  was  used  by  Jesus  during  his  Galilaean  ministry  to  veil 
rather  than  to  reveal  his  Messianic  claims,  at  any  rate  on  current 
or  traditional  lines.  It  is  the  chosen  name  by  which  he  expresses 
the  uniqueness  and  representative  character  of  his  personality  in 
respect  of  his  peculiar  relation  to  men.  On  the  one  hand  it 
identifies  him  with  men,  setting  him  before  us  as  the  true  man. 
On  the  other  hand  it  marks  him  off  as  different  from  us,  not 
'a  son  of  man'  simply,  but  ^the  Son  of  Man,'  beside  whom 
there  was  no  second — one  in  whom  manhood  is  seen  after  God's 
purpose,  the  representative  man.  As  such,  he  is  like  us  and 
one  with  us  in  all  normal  human  qualities;  but  also  above  us 
and  apart,  in  the  typical  nature  of  his  humanity,  and  so  in  the 
prerogative  and  authority  belonging  to  unique  relation  to  God  as 
well  as  to  us. 

To  sum  up.  On  Jesus'  lips,  according  to  all  the  authentic 
instances— which  probably  means  nearly  all  the  fourteen  in  Mark — 
the  term  is  employed  to  describe  him  as  the  One  who  is  Man  in 
a  special  sense,  man  after  God's  purposes  in  creating  men.  Thus 
he  is  the  Representative  Man,  in  whom  the  calling  and  destiny  of 
the  People  of  God  (as  symbolized  buth  in  Dan.  vii.  and  in  Isa.  liii.) 
is  anticipated  and  foreshadowed.  'The  Son  of  Man'  expressed 
for  Jesus  his  representative  human  relations,  both  to  man  and  God  ; 
while  'the  Son  of  God,' a  recognized  Messianic  title  (see  Matt, 
xvi.  16;  of.  Ps.  ii.  7  and  its  use  in  the  secondary  text  of  Luke  iii. 
22),  expressed  to  his  consciousness  that  experience  of  filial  rela- 
tion to  God  which  his  baptism  brought  to  a  climax.  It  was  natural, 
however,  that  in  some  cases  '  the  Son  of  Man  '  should  slip  un- 
consciously into  the  Church's  tradition  of  her  Lord's  sayings,  in 
the  sense  of  Stephen's  use  of  it  in  Acts  vii.  56,  i.e.  in  the  more 
Apocalyptic  or  eschatological  aspect  (cl.  the  words  of  James  the 
Lord's  brother  quoted  in  Euseb.  ii.  23).  This  may  even  increase 
the  number  of  the  cases  in  which  Jesus  seems  to  use  it  in  that 
sense  as  compared  with  the  other — his  own  original  usage. 

This  view  is,  however,  not  shared  by  most  scholars  (see  R.  H. 
Charles,  in  his  edition  of  The  Book  oj  Enoch — but  on  the  other 
hand  Stanton.  The  Jewish  and  Christian  Messiah  ;  also  Menzies 
and  Montefiore  in  their  Commentaries  on  Mark),  on  account 
mainly  of  certain  eschatological  contexts  where  there  is  close 
affinity  between  Jesus'  use  and  that  of  Jewish  Apocalyptic  writings, 

K 


130  ST.  MARK  2.  13,  14.     XMk 

13  And  he  went  forth  again  by  the  sea  side;  and  all  the 

14  multitude  resorted  unto  him,  and  he  taught  them.     And 
as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  Levi  the  son  of  Alphseus  sitting 

notably  the  Book  of  Enoch  (see  Box's  ed.  of  St.  Matthew,  pp.  27-28). 
But  (i)  the  affinity  is  confined  to  such  cases,  while  in  others — 
including  various  references  in  terms  of  Is.  liii. — Jesus'  use  is 
different  and  quite  distinctive,  having  no  eschatological  suggestions 
(cf.  note  on  ii.  28)  :  (2)  the  clear  cases  of  affinity  (xiv.  61,  cf.  xiii. 
26,  viii.  38)  are  confined  to  the  close  of  Jesus'  ministry,  after  the  con- 
versation at  Caesarea  Philippi,  when  his  death  is  plainly  anticipated, 
so  that  the  '  eschatological '  aspects  of  his  own  use  of  the  term  (for 
which  the  above  view  provides)  would  then  naturally  come  into 
the  foreground.  That  is,  the  emphasis  of  his  usage  is  less  eschato- 
logical in  the  earlier  than  in  the  later  stages  of  the  ministry  ;  and 
the  earlier  emphasis  is  the  more  characteristic  of  his  own  thought. 
The  present  editor  has  developed  his  view  of  the  subject  more 
fully  in  Christianity  in  History,  pp.  20-6. 

ii.  13-14.  The  Call  of  Levi  (Matt.  ix.  9-13  ;  Luke  v.  27-32). 
Another  typical  episode  bearing  on  the  nature  of  Jesus'  mission 
and  its  contrast  with  current  religious  ideas.  Its  temporal  rela- 
tions are  vague,  '  again '  referring  back  to  the  remote  occasion  in 
i.  16. 

13.  And  lie  went  fortli  .  .  .  Here  Jesus  is  seen  leaving  the 
city  proper  and  betaking  himself  again  to  the  sea-side.  The  wide 
popular  interest  in  him,  referred  to  in  i.  25,  is  seemingly  the 
occasion  of  his  so  doing.  The  imperfect  tenses,  '  kept  coming  to 
him,  and  he  kept  teaching  them,'  suggest  movement  from  time  to 
time  on  his  part  as  is  implied  in  this  episode  which  follows,  '  as  he 
passed  along'  the  water's  side.     This  setting  is  Petrine  only. 

14.  Levi  the  son  of  Alphseus.  Who  is  this  Levi?  Matt.  ix. 
g  seems  to  identify  him  with  the  future  apostle  Matthew.  But 
Mark  gives  no  hint  of  such  a  thing  in  his  list  of  the  Apostles 
(in.  i8j,  when  naming  Matthew.  Moreover  the  apocryphal  Gospel 
of  Peter  refers  to  '  Levi  whom  the  Lord  [called],'  as  companion  of 
Peter  and  Andrew  in  an  interview  with  the  risen  Jesus.  Hence 
it  is  natural  to  take  him  to  be  a  different  person  from  Matthew. 
Yet  it  is  most  unlikely  that  there  should  have  been  two  men 
solemnly  called  in  the  same  way  and  in  the  same  place  by  Jesus, 
one  becoming  an  apostle  and  the  other  remaining  relatively 
unknown.  Either,  then,  Levi  and  Matthew  are  names  of  one  and 
the  same  person,  or  Matt.  ix.  9  is  in  error.  Matthnv,  the  name 
that  occurs  in  the  list  of  the  Apostles,  means  'gift  of  God,'  and  on 
the  former  theory  would  most  likely  be  a  surname  he  took  after  his 
great  experience  of  God's  grace  to  him.     The  mention  of  Alphseits 


ST.  MARK  2.  16.     XMk  131 

at  the  place  of  toll,  and  he  saith  unto  him,  Follow  me. 
And  he  arose  and  followed  him.     And  it  came  to  pass,  15 

has  led  some  to  regard  Levi  as  the  brother  of  'James  the  (son)  of 
Alphaeus'  ;  and  D  13,69,  much  Old  hat.,  andTatian''s Diatessaron, 
as  cited  by  Ephrem  Syrus,  have  actuall3'  '  He  chose  James  the 
toll-gatherer.'  But  in  no  apostolic  list  is  Matthew  coupled  with  that 
James,  as  Peter  is  witli  Andrew,  and  John  with  his  James.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  same  MSS.  have  in  Mark  iii.  18  '  James  the 
(son)  of  Alphaeus  and  Lebbaeus '  (not  Thaddaeus),  where  some 
MSS.  known  to  Origen  seem  to  have  read  Leues  =  Levi,  instead 
of  Lebbaeus.  This  points  to  an  early  view  that  James  and  Levi 
were  the  two  sons  of  Alphaeus,  both  becoming  Apostles.  This 
would  exclude  the  identification  with  Matthew  assumed  in  Matt. 
ix.  9 ;  of.  X.  3  :  yet  the  reading  in  question  is  secondary  and  can- 
not be  trusted.  On  the  whole  (a)  one  may  regard  Matthew  as  the 
surname  taken  by  Levi  the  ex-tax-collector,  in  order  to  express  his 
changed  life.  In  that  case  we  must  assume  that  it  came  gradually 
to  supersede  the  earlier  one  in  circles  where  his  apostolic  ministry 
was  familiar,  and  that  the  First  Gospel  reflects  this  usage,  simply 
substituting  in  the  story  of  his  call  the  surname  Matthew  for  Levi, 
i.  e.  the  one  which  he  came  later  to  bear.  But  if  so,  it  is  hard  to 
explain  Mark's  silence  (and  therefore  ignorance?)  of  this  in  his 
list  of  Apostles.  Or  (6)  the  two  names  must  be  permanently 
distinguished,  Mark's  account  being  preferred  to  that  of  the  editor 
of  our  Matthew. 

sitting  at  the  place  of  toll.  The  Romans  farmed  out  the 
taxes  to  rich  men,  who  emploj'ed  agents  to  do  the  work  of  collec- 
tion. So  also  did  native  princes  like  the  Herods.  Levi  was  one 
of  Herod  Antipas'  subordinates,  provincial  custom-house  officers, 
who  were  usually  natives.  Their  task  lent  itself  readily  to  rapacity 
and  oppression,  '  A  passage  in  Lucian  classes  them  with  adulterers 
and  sycophants'  (Wood).  Moreover  their  duties  brought  them 
into  constant  contact  with  Gentiles,  and  otherwise  made  it  im- 
possible for  them  to  be  strict  Jews  ritually.  Capernaum,  by  its 
position,  would  naturally  have  a  custom-house. 

followed  Mm.  For  a  man  in  Levi's  place  it  meant  more  to 
answer  Jesus'  call  than  it  did  to  Simon  and  his  comrades.  They 
had  an  occupation  which  the}'  could  easily  resume  ;  he  had  not. 

ii.  15-17.  Jesus  eats  with  outcasts  (Matt.  ix.  10  13  ;  Luke  v. 
29-32).  Luke  describes  it  as  'a  great  feast,'  a  reception,  to  which 
Levi  had  invited  many  members  of  his  own  class,  Jesus  being  the 
most  honoured  guest. 

15.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  was  sitting'  at  meat.  The 
better  reading  (N  B  L)  is  '  And  it  comes  to  pass,'  which  does  not 
suggest,  like  the  R.  V.,  that  the  incident  followed  the  same  day. 


k 


132  ST.  MARK  2.  i6.     XMk 

that  he  was   sitting  at   meat  in  his  house,   and  many 

'^pubHcans  and   sinners   sat  down  with  Jesus  and  his 

disciples  :  for  there  were  many,  and  they  followed  him. 

1 6  And  the  scribes  '^of  the  Pharisees,  when  they  saw  that 

^  See  margfinal  note  on  Matt.  v.  46. 

''  Some  ancient  authorities  read  and  the  Pharisees 


The  two  are  related  in  nature,  not  in  time,  as  is  clearly  the  case 
also  with  what  follows  in  18  IT.  Luke  seems  to  overlook  this  aspect 
of  the  matter. 

in  his  house.  Whose  house  ?  Levi's  surely.  Some  say  the 
house  of  Jesus  (as  Matt.)  ;  but  this  is  unlikely,  especially  in  view  of 
the  scale  of  the  entertainment,  emphasized  by  Luke,  but  implied 
even  in  Mark's  use  of  many  '  twice  over. 

and  many  publicans  and  sinners  sat  down  with  Jesus. 
Probably  it  was  a  feast  given  by  Levi  specially  to  his  old  pro- 
fessional colleagues  and  others  of  his  circle,  possibly  a  sort  of 
farewell  feast  on  relinquishing  his  old  career.  'Publicans'  is 
a  bad  rendering  of  toll-  or  customs-collectors.  For  not  only  is 
'  publican  '  a  misleading  English  equivalent  for  the  hatin pudlicaiitts, 
a  tax-farmer  (see  above,  v.  13)  ;  but  also  Levi  and  his  friends  were 
not  publicans  at  all,  but  their  agents.  'Sinners'  here  means  other 
kinds  of  religious  outcasts,  on  strict  or  Pharisaic  standards  of  what 
was  inconsistent  with  a  man's  ranking  as  'a  good  Jew.' 

for  there  were  many.  These  words  are  parenthetical,  and 
probably  refer  to  the  unlikely  types  just  alluded  to  as  present. 

and  they  followed  him  :  better  'they  were  in  attendance  on 
him  '  (imperfect  tense),  i.  e.  regularly.  These  words  seem  part  of 
the  parenthetic  explanation  about  the  '  publicans  and  sinners,' 
adding  that  they  constantly  kept  near  the  person  of  their  new 
Friend. 

Our  two  oldest  MSS.  (N  B,  with  L  and  two  others),  however, 
take  the  Greek  of  these  words  with  what  follows,  thus  :  'There 
were  in  attendance  on  him  also  the  scribes  of  the  Pharisees  ;  and 
seeing,  &c.  ' ;  and  Swete  follows  their  view.  But  this  is  not  so 
good.  Probably  it  is  due  to  missing  the  point  about  the  social 
outcasts  being  '  in  attendance  '  on  Jesus,  in  the  sense  suggested 
in  the  last  note — as  distinct  from  permanent  adherence  like  that  of 
his  'disciples'  proper. 

16.  the  scribes  of  the  Pharisees.  So  in  Acts  xxiii.  g  we 
read  of  '  scribes  of  the  Pharisees'  part,'  i.  c.  those  belonging  to  that 
religious  party. 

the  Pharisees.  The  leading  sect  of  Judaism  in  Jesus'  day,  so 
called  from  a  Hebrew  word  Perushim,  meaning  'separated  ones,' 


ST.  MARK  2.  i6.     XMk  133 

he  was  eating  with  the  sinners  and  pubHcans,  said  unto 

i.  e.  separated  from  the  mass  of  their  countrj'men  by  more  rigid 
observance  of  the  ritual  rules  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  especially  those 
for  securing  'cleanness'  or  religious  purity.  The  name  was 
probably  given  them  by  others  as  a  nick-name,  like  the  kindred 
title  'Puritans,'  to  suggest  their  claim  to  be  'unco'  holy'  in  a 
technical  sense.  Their  positive  name  for  themselves  was  Chaberint, 
'fellows'  or  '  neighbours'  in  a  special  sense,  as  belonging  to  an 
inner  society  or  fellovvship  of  like-minded  persons.  They  formed, 
in  fact,  to  their  own  thinking,  the  true  Israel  within  Israel,  marked 
off  from  the  mass  by  their  strict  regard  for  'the  tradition  of  the 
Elders'  or  Scribes  of  olden  times,  to  whom  the}'  traced  the  oral 
law,  which  developed  b}^  discussion  and  inference  the  Written 
Law,  especially  as  to  ritual  'cleanness'  and  '  uncleanness.'  It 
was  relative  to  their  modes  of  thought  that  the  expression 
'publicans  and  sinners'  primarily  had  its  scornful  meaning;  and 
it  was  according  to  the  same  standard  that  intercourse  with  such, 
especially  in  the  close  contact  of  eating  together,  w^as  regarded  as 
defiling,  so  as  to  call  for  ritual  purification  by  washing,  even  when 
such  contact  was  accidental  (cf.  vii.  2ff.  for  the  place  of  '  washings  ' 
in  their  economy  of  the  religious  life). 

The  exclusive  spirit  and  methods  of  the  'Pharisees'  certainly 
made  them  a  sect  within  Judaism,  of  which  they  formed  numeri- 
cally but  a  small  proportion.  Nevertheless  Pharisaism  '  was  the 
legitimate  and  classic  representative  of  post-exilian  Judaism  in 
general.  It  did  but  carry  out  with  relentless  energy  the  conse- 
quences of  its  principle  '  of  ritual  holiness  (Schiirer,  Hiiiory  of  the 
Jeivish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  II.  iii.  25),  It  had  enormous 
influence  as  the  prevailing  tendency  among  the  Scribes  (or 
'  La\v3'ers'\  the  official  expounders  of  the  Torah  or  Sacred  Law 
of  Judaism. 

It  was  with  the  adherents  of  such  an  ideal  of  Judaism  that  Jesus 
became  more  and  more  involved  in  controversy  as  his  ministry 
developed,  until  finally,  in  alliance  with  the  ruling  Temple  hierarchy 
in  Jerusalem,  they  brought  about  his  death.  It  seems,  to  judge 
by  the  Gospels  (^though  Jewish  scholars  are  reluctant  to  allow 
this),  that  the  dominant  Pharisaic  scribes  of  Jesus'  day  were 
trying  to  extend  the  strict  ideal  of '  cleanness,'  proper  merely  to 
the  Priests  in  the  Mosaic  Law,  not  only  to  their  own  'sect'  or 
fellowship  of  rather  professional  and  technical  piety,  but  also  to 
Jews  at  large.  Later  it  is  clear  that  this  was  not  attempted  by 
Rabbinic  law  :  but  that  does  not  prove  that  the  attempt  was  not 
made  in  Jesus'  day. 

eatiug'  with  sinners  and  publicans.  Eating  with  others  is 
almost  everyvvhei-e  a  mark  of  fellowship.  Especially  is  it  so  in 
the  East,  where  it  has  usually  a  religious  aspect  or  basis.     It  is 


134  ST.  MARK  2.  17.     X^k 

his  disciples,  '"^He  eateth  and  ^drinketh  with  publicans 
17  and  sinners.  And  when  Jesus  heard  it,  he  sailh  unto 
them,  They  that  are  c  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician, 
but  they  that  are  sick  :  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous, 
but  sinners. 

"  Or,  How  is  it  that  he  eateth  .  .  .  shifters  ? 

^  and  drinketh  is  absent  from  the  oldest  MSS.  "^   Gr.  strong 

here  that  caste  feeling  comes  out  most  strongly,  as  in  India  to-daj' 
So  was  it  then  in  Judaism.  That  Jesus  should  associate  with  the 
classes  held  outcast  by  the  strict  Jews,  and  should  even  receive 
one  of  these  despised  men  into  the  circle  of  his  intimate  disciples, 
was  itself  a  cause  of  offence. 

17.  not  to  call  the  righteoiis,  but  sinners.  The  very  heart 
of  Jesus'  Gospel,  and  still  '  the  philosoph}-,  in  a  nutshell,  oi  all 
home  and  foreign  missionary  operations'  (  Morison\  Jesus,  in  the 
language  of  what  was  probablj'  a  familiar  proverb,  came  to  do 
a  physician's  part.  If  there  were  any  whole,  thej'  required  him 
not ;  if  there  were  .nny  reall3-  righteous,  the3'  had  no  need  of  his 
call.  '  He  did  not  avoid  sinners,  but  sought  them  out :  this  was 
a  new  and  sublime  contribution  to  the  development  of  religion 
and  morality"  (Montefiore,  ad.  he).  But  the  idea,  and  still  more 
its  practice,  was  strange  and  offensive  to  the  then  leaders  of 
Judaism  :  nor  have  Christians  always  been  true  to  its  spirit. 

ii.  18-22.  The  Question  of  Fasting  (Matt  ix.  14-17  ;  Luke  v. 
33-39).  The  fact  that  Matt,  has  this  episode  at  another  and  later 
point  in  the  narrative  suggests  that  Mark's  order  is  here  not 
historically  accurate  ;  cf.  notes  on  19  f.  Affinity  of  subject  would 
easily  lead  to  its  attachment  to  the  foregoing,  possibly  first  in  oral 
teaching. 

These  two  homely  and  vigorous  similes  continue,  but  carry  on 
to  a  further  point  of  contrast,  the  general  idea  of  difference  be- 
tween the  religion  of  Pharisaism  and  Jesus'  Gospel,  as  the  true 
outcome  of  Hebrc%v  religion,  as  this  unfolds  gradually  in  the  O.  T. 
For  here  the  contrast  amounts  to  incompatibility,  especiall3'  as 
shewn  in  outward  forms  of  expression,  tlic  latter  point  coming 
out  clearly  in  the  simile  of  the  old  and  new  wine-skins  for 
(similar)  wine  in  two  stages  of  development.  The  underlying 
idea  that  there  is  positive  danger  to  the  interests  of  both  t3'pcs  of 
piety,  the  old  and  the  new  (as  with  the  old  wine-skin  and  the  new 
wine),  and  especially  to  the  old  (like  the  old  garment),  implies  the 
definite  obsolescence  of  the  one  and  its  supersession  ere  long  by 
the  other.  But  let  each  exist  side  by  side  for  the  present,  with 
liberty  for  all  to  serve  God  through  the  methods  appropriate   to 


ST.  MARK  2.  18.     XMk  135 

And  John's  disciples  and  the  Pharisees  were  fasting:  18 

either,  if  only  it  be  in  sincerit3'  and  reality.  But  let  them  not  be 
mixed,  whether  as  new  (features^  patched  on  to  the  old  system,  or 
old  forms  used  to  contain  tlie  new  spirit.  Luke  v.  39  adds  the 
thought  that  a  taste  acquiri  d  for  the  old  naturally  hinders  appre- 
ciation of  the  new. 

This  tolerant  attitude  towards  the  old  order  of  God's  service  is 
characteristic  of  Jesus,  Onlj'  '  hypocrisy' '  or  make-believe  devotion 
to  religion — compounding  for  infidelity  to  moral  obligations  to 
one's  '  neighbours  '  (in  the  largest  sense)  by  zeal  for  ritual  duties 
to  God — was  denounced  by  Jesus,  whether  in  Pharisees  them- 
selves or  in  their  attitude  and  behaviour  to  others.  That  this  was 
a  just  appreciation  of  the  Pharisaism  prevalent  in  Jesus'  own 
day  there  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt,  in  spite  of  what  modern 
Jewish  scholars  have  to  say  by  way  of  criticism,  derived  mainly 
from  later  periods  in  the  history  of  Judaism,  and  especially  from 
their  own  experience  of  it  as  a  living  religion  to-day  (cf.  note  on 
Matt.  V.  20  in  this  Commentary). 

Jesus'  apologia  is  for  spiritual  religion  as  a  thing  marked  by 
elasticity  and  flexibility,  allowing-  of  adaptation  to  the  needs  of  an 
expansive  spirit  within,  over  against  rigidity  or  stiff  conservatism, 
concerned  for  the  letter  of  a  legal  code  of  observances.  '  The  move- 
ment Jesus  has  set  on  foot  is  a  fresh  and  growing  thing  ;  it  is 
impossible  to  set  limits  to  its  expansion,  irrational  to  confine  it  to 
forms  which  were  not  made  for  it.  The  lofty  consciousness  of  Jesus 
here  finds  expression,  that  as  his  Gospel  is  one  of  joy  [in  the 
Bridegroom  and  all  He  stands  for],  it  is  also  one  of  freedom.  He 
reverenced  the  forms  of  the  religious  life  of  his  time  [so  far  as  to 
defer  to  them  save  where  they  clashed,  as  any  fixed  forms  must, 
with  a  higher  inward  principlcl ;  but  he  saw  them  to  be  inadequate 
for  the  new  principle  of  which  he  was  the  herald  to  the  world  [the 
Fatherly  reign  of  God,  as  a  very  present  and  living  Spirit  of  holy 
love,  within  the  souls  of  a  "  willing"  People  (cf.  Ps.  ex.  3") — the 
Kingdom  of  God].  He  set  no  forms  for  his  followers  to  observe  : 
they  can  appeal  to  him  for  principles  but  not  for  forms. 

'  If  there  is  any  difference  between  the  two  parables,  the  first 
one  suggests  that  the  old  faith  will  suffer  if  its  forms  are  used  for 
the  new  movement  (not  as  Paul,  who  fears  that  the  Gospel  will 
itself  be  lost,  if  connected  with  unsuitable  observances.  Gal.  iv. 
9-11)  :  while  in  the  second  the  ill-assorted  union  is  shewn  to  be 
bad  on  both  sides'  (Menzies). 

18.  John's  disciples.  The  Baptist's  strict  followers,  therefore, 
remained  a  distinct  party,  with  their  own  religious  practice  (cf. 
Luke  xi.  i). 

were    fasting'.     Not    'used    to    fast'    (A.V.\    but    were  so 
engaged  then.      Fasting  as  a  mark  of  and  aid  to  penitence  had 


136  ST.  MARK  2.  19,  20.     XMk 

and  they  come  and  say  unto  him,  Why  do  John's 
disciples  and   the  disciples  of  the  Pharisees    fast,   but 

^9  thy  disciples  fast  not?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Can 
the  sons  of  the  bride-chamber  fast,  while  the  bridegroom 
is  with  them  ?  as  long  as  they  have  the  bridegroom  with 

20  them,  they  cannot  fast.     But  the  days  will  come,  when 

come  to  have  a  great  importance,  and  even  religious  'merit' 
attached  to  it.  In  the  Lav^r  its  observance  was  prescribed  on  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement.  But  the  traditional  law  had  added  much 
to  the  written  ;  and  zealo'us  Jews  made  the  second  and  fifth  days 
of  each  week  days  of  fasting  (cf.  Luke  xviii.  12). 

they  come.  Who  1  Presumably  members  of  one  or  both  of 
the  groups  just  named.  Matthew  says  'the  disciples  of  John,'  and 
gives  the  question  in  terms  including  them  with  the  Pharisees. 

thy  disciples  fast  not.  The  suggestion  is  that  Jesus  was 
remiss  in  allowing  his  disciples  to  disregard  fasting  — and  himself 
likewise. 

19.  Can  the  sons  of  the  bride-chamber  fast  ?  Better,  '  Surely 
the  sons  .  .  .  cannot  fast,  can  they  ?  '  A  Jewish  wedding  was 
a  season  of  great  merry-making,  when  it  would  be  most  out  of 
place  for  a  bridegroom's  special  friends  to  be  cultivating  a  mourn- 
ful spirit.  '  Sons  of  the  bride-chamber'  is  an  Aramaic  expression 
for  'friends  of  the  bridegroom'  (John  iii.  29). 

cannot  fast.  It  would  not  be  in  character  for  them  to  do  so. 
In  later  Judaism,  waiting  on  the  bridegroom  brought  exemption,  it 
is  said,  even  from  certain  prescriptions  of  the  traditional  law — in- 
cluding the  bi-weekly  fasts.      Possibly  it  was  so  by  this  time. 

the  bridegroom.  Here  Jesus  indirectly  applies  to  himself 
the  great  figure  by  which  O.  T.  prophecy  (e.  g.  Hos.  ii.  19  f.,  Isa. 
liv.  i-io)  sets  forth  Jehovah's  covenant  relation  to  Israel.  If  he 
really  meant  so  to  do  -as  seems  demanded  by  the  argument  — his 
defence  would  virtually  amount  to  the  claim  to  Messiahship  (cf. 
Rev.  xix.  7).  But  so  bold  a  form  of  that  claim  is  unlikely  at  so 
early  a  stage  in  his  ministry.  It  points  to  the  period  of  the  con- 
fession at  Caesarea  Philippi — when  first  Jesus  began  to  refer  to 
his  final  rejection  and  death,  which  is  plainly  alluded  to  in  the  next 
verse.  [But  it  is  possible  that  19''  ('while'  .  .),  20,  are  a  gloss  or 
comment  due  to  tradition  ;  if  so,  18-19'' may  come  rather  earlier.] 
Hence  the  section  is  probably  out  of  its  historic  context,  having 
been  attached,  in  Christian  tradition,  for  purposes  of  oral  in- 
struction, to  the  present  context,  as  illustrating  the  general  con- 
trast between  Pharisaism  and  the  Gospel  of  Jesus.  The  same 
may  apply  to  some  of  the  matter  which  follows,  down  to  the  end 
of  ch.  ii  ;   cf.  note  on  vi.  54-56. 

20.  B\it  (the)  days  will  come  .  .  .  shall  be  taken  away.    The 


ST.  MARK  2.  ar,  22.     XMk  137 

the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away  from  them,  and  then 
will  they  fast  in  that  day.     No  man  seweth  a  piece  of  ai 
undressed  cloth  on  an   old  garment :    else  that  which 
should  fill  it  up  taketh  from  it,  the  new  from  the  old, 
and  a  worse  rent  is  made.     And  no  man  putteth  new  23 
wine  into  old '^wine-skins  :  else  the  wine  will  burst  the 

*  That  isj  skuts  used  as  bottles. 

last  expression  is  a  strong  one,  expressing  violent  removal.  The 
whole  utterance  implies  that  already  the  thought  of  suffering  and 
death  was  in  his  mind,  and  so  probably  belongs  properly  to  after 
ch.  viii. 

then  will  they  fast  in  that  day.  Times  differ,  and  obser- 
vances with  them.  Fasting  is  not  a  necessary  or  constant  part  of 
religious  duty  ;  yet  there  may  be  occasions  on  which  it  will  be 
appropriate  and  helpful.  It  is  no  binding  or  meritorious  duty  in 
itself. 

21.  No  man  seweth  ...  a  worse  rent  is  made.  A  sentence 
more  difficult  in  form  than  in  sei:se.  What  is  in  view  is  the  fact 
that  new  undressed  cloth  shrinks,  and,  if  used  to  mend  old  cloth, 
is  apt  to  'drag  away  '  and  increase  the  rent  it  is  meant  to  cover. 
How  does  this  apply  to  the  situation  in  hand  ?  The  patch  meant 
to  fill  up  the  hole  in  the  old  garment  must  be  the  new  Gospel  way 
of  living,  fitted  on  to  the  old  system  of  Judaism  where  defective. 
This  seems  to  be  Jesus'  answer  to  a  thought  which  might  occur 
to  some  of  his  hearers.  He  had  just  dealt  with  the  suggestion  that 
it  would  be  better  if ///'s  disciples  practised  fasting,  as  part  of  their 
piety  as  '  penitents  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,'  after  the  analogy  of 
John  and  his  disciples.  And  then,  having  justified  his  own  disci- 
ples for  doing  otherwise — on  the  score  of  the  incongruity  of  fasting 
with  the  prevailing  spirit  of  their  discipleship — he  turns  to  warn 
all  and  sundry  that  the  principle  worked  both  ways.  That  is,  the 
policj'  of  patchwork  in  such  a  case  was  altogether  a  mistaken  one. 
It  would  be  unwise,  and  harmful  to  the  unity  even  of  the  old 
traditional  type  of  piety,  whether  as  ordinary  Pharisaism  or  as  the 
Baptist's  reformed  variety  (for  such  it  was  at  bottom,  cf.  Matt.  xi. 
II — an  estimate  noteworthy  as  shewing  Jesus'  consciousness  of 
the  genius  of  his  own  message  as  distinct  from  John's),  for  it  to 
try  to  adopt  the  new  Gospel  methods  as  a  mere  reform  of  Judaism, 
an  improvement  '  patched  on  '  to  the  old  system,  with  which  it 
was  not  really  '  of  a  piece.'  Mixing  the  methods  proper  to  either 
t5'pe  of  piety  was  unfair  and  ruinous  to  each  as  a  consistent  whole. 

22.  wine-skins.  A  better  rendering  than  the  'bottles'  of  the 
A.  V,     Wine-bottles  in  those  days  were  skins.     But  skins  in  time 


138  ST.  MARK  2.  23,  24.     XMk 

skins,  and  the  wine  perisheth,  and  the  skins :  but  they 
put  new  wine  into  fresh  wine-skins. 

23  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  was  going  on  the  sabbath 
day  through  the  cornfields ;  and  his  disciples  *  began,  as 

24  they  went,  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn.    And  the  Pharisees 

"  Gr.  began  to  make  their  way  plucking. 

get  stiff  and  crack  (^cf.  Josh.  ix.  4,  13)  ;  and  in  that  condition 
they  are  unable  to  bear  the  strain  put  upon  them  by  the  inpouring 
of  the  'young  wine,'  the  freshly  fermented  wine  of  the  new 
season.  These  homely  comparisons,  parables  in  germ,  suggest 
how  mistaken  it  is  to  think  of  mixing  up  things  which  largely 
differ.  To  patch  up  the  old  religious  system  with  the  new,  or  to 
try  to  contain  the  new  spirit  within  the  old  form,  is  a  thing  at 
once  incongruous  and  injurious. 

but  (they  put)  new  wine  into  fresh  wine-skins  :  rather  an 
abbreviated  proverbial  construction  '  new  wine  into  fresh  wine- 
skins'  (i.  e.  one  must  put,  see  Luke  v.  38).  The  clause  is  missing 
from  a  group  of  authorities  going  back  to  the  second  century  (D 
and  Old  Latin)  ;  and  it  may  be  an  early  gloss  (of.  Matt,  and  Lk.). 
But  they  may  have  failed  to  perceive  how  it  could  be  construed. 

ii.  23-28.  Sabbath  Episode  0/ the  cornfield  {}<\7\ii.  xii.  1-8;  Luke 
vi.  1-5).  Here  Mark  reports  a  fourth  cause  of  offence  found  in 
Jesus.  He  has  noticed  his  claim  to  forgive  sin,  his  companying 
with  publicajis  and  sinners,  his  attitude  to  fasting.  Now  he 
instances  the  fault  found  with  his  liberty  as  regards  conventional 
Sabbath  law.  '  The  storj",  placed  as  it  is  somewhere  near  the 
shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  implies  a  date  somewhere  in  April  or 
May'  (Burkitt.  The  Gospel  History  atid  its  transmission,  p.  80,  n.  i). 
It  affords,  perhaps,  the  only  clear  reference  to  a  season  of  the 
year  in  Mark's  Gospel,  and  is  therefore  of  value  for  the  chronology 
of  Jesus'  ministry  (which  seems  in  Mark  not  to  exceed  a  year  and 
a  quarter).  Yet  how  long  Jesus  had  taught  prior  to  this  episode 
is  uncertain.  Matthew  has  it  and  the  next  one  after  the  Calling 
of  the  Twelve. 

23.  the  cornfields  :  not  necessarily  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Capernaum  at  all. 

began,  as  they  went,  to  plnck  the  ears  of  corn :  literally, 
as  in  the  margin  of  the  R.  V.,  '  began  to  make  their  way  plucking.' 
This  action  ignored  no  written  law  touching  the  Sabbath,  but  only 
one  of  the  elaborate  rules  which  Rabbinic  zeal  had  deduced  from 
the  broad  principle  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  prohibiting  ordinary  labour 
on  the  day  of  sacred  '  rest  to  the  Lord'  (Ex.  xxxv.  a")  — so  adding 
to  the  legal  character  of  the  manner  and  spirit  of  its  observance. 


ST.  MARK  2.  25,  26.     XMk  139 

said  unto  him,  Behold,  why  do  they  on  the  sabbath  day 
that  which  is  not  lawful?     And  he  said  unto  them.  Did  25 
ye  never  read  what  David  did,  when  he  had  need,  and 
was  an  hungred,  he,  and  they  that  were  with  him  ?    How  26 
he  entered  into  the  house  of  God  f*  when  Abiathar  was 

"  Some  ancient  authorities  read  in  the  days  of  Abiathar  the  high 
priest. 

24.  on   the  satobatli   day   that    which    is  not  lawful.     The 

mere  plucking  of  corn  in  passing  was  not  in  itself  an  offence.  In- 
deed, the  Deuteronomic  law  had  some  simple  prescriptions  bearing 
on  such  liberty  taken  with  a  neighbour's  corn  (xxiii.  25).  But  the 
traditional  law  had  made  plucking  the  corn  equivalent  to  reaping 
it;  and  reaping  on  the  sabbath  was  forbidden  ^Exod.  xxxiv.  21). 
The  presence  of  the  objectors  shews  (hat  Jesus'  society  was  being 
frequented  also  by  other  hearers  than  his  disciples  (in  the  wider 
sense),  some  of  whom  were  of  the  partj'  of  strict  observance 
known  as  Pharisees. 

25.  Did  ye  never  read  ?  The  sort  of  appeal  to  Scripture 
which  Rabbis  themselves  were  wont  to  make.  Jesus  does  not 
here  question  the  traditional  sabbath  rule,  although  later  on  (vii. 
I  ff.)  he  challenges  the  whole  S3stem  of  such  tradition,  as  tending 
to  override  the  real  intention  and,  indeed,  the  very  spirit  of  the 
Mosaic  Law.  Here  he  is  content  to  refute  his  critics  out  of  their 
own  final  authorit3',  the  Scriptures,  shewing  by  the  case  of  David 
and  his  hungry  men,  as  recorded  in  i  Sam.  xxi.  1-6,  how  any 
such  restrictive  regulation  had  to  give  place  to  the  higher  require- 
ments of  necessity  and  mercj\ 

The  argument  is  that  from  analogy  ;  and  such  use  as  is  here 
made  of  Scripture  narrative,  with  elucidation  of  its  religious 
meaning  by  means  of  imaginative  filling  out  of  its  suggestions  (as 
by  adding  'when  he  had  need  and  was  hungry"),  was  quite  ac- 
cording to  current  usage  among  Rabbis  and  others  (it  was  called 
Haggadah,  as  distinct  from  Halachah,  direct  legal  discussion). 

26.  the  house  of  God  :  i.  e.  the  Tabernacle  or  tent  of  meeting, 
pitched  at  that  period  at  Nob,  a  '  city  of  the  priests '  (i  Sam.  xxii. 
i9\  probably  not  far  from  Jerusalem  (Is.  x.  32^. 

when  Abiathar  was  high  priest,  i.  e.  when  he  was  actually 
in  office.  But  according  to  the  narrative  in  i  Sam.  xxi.  1-6 
Ahimelech  was  priest  at  the  time.  There  seems  to  be  some  con- 
fusion in  the  O.  T.  text  itself  (both  Heb.  and  Greek).  In  i  Sam. 
xxii.  20  Abiathar  is  '  one  of  the  sons  of  Ahimelech,  the  son  of 
Ahitub  ;  '  in  2  Sam.  viii.  17  we  have  'Ahimelech.  the  son  of 
Abiathar,'  as  high-priest  in  David's  reign  (compare  i  Chron.  xviii, 
16,  xxiv.  6\ 


140  ST.  MARK  2.  27,  28.     X*"' 

high  priest,]  and  did  eat  the  shewbread,  which  it  is  not 
lawful  to  eat  save  for  the  priests,  and  gave  also  to  them 

27  that   were  with  him  ?     And    he   said    unto   them,  The 
sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sabbath  : 

28  so  that  the  Son  of  man  is  lord  even  of  the  sabbath. 


The  confusion  was  a  natural  one  owing  to  the  close  association 
of  Abiathar,  at  one  time  or  another,  with  David's  career.  But  in 
any  case,  seeing  that  the  whole  clause  specifying  the  date  is  con- 
fined to  Mark  and  has  no  equivalent  in  the  parallel  narratives  of 
Matt,  and  Luke,  it  is  probably  a  mere  editorial  note  due  to  a  later 
hand  (D,  much  Old  Lat.  and  the  Old  Syr.  omit  it). 

the  shewbread:  the  bread  of  the  setting-forth  (cf.  LXX  of 
Exod.  xxxix.  36),  i.  e.  before  God.  So  also  in  the  O.  T.  '  the  bread 
of  the  face  '  or  '  the  presence  '  (Exod.  xxv.  30  ;  1  Sam.  xxi.  4-6). 
It  consisted  of  twelve  new-baked  loaves  placed  every  sabbath  day 
on  a  table  in  two  rows  of  six,  sprinkled  with  incense,  and  left  for 
the  week.     See  its  law  in  Lev.  xxiv.  5,  9. 

27.  The  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 
sabbath.  The  refutation  of  these  Pharisees  is  carried  now  beyond 
the  witness  of  the  O.  T.  narrative,  to  the />;7'««)!>/^  involved  (contrast 
Matt.  xii.  5,  7).  The  sabbath  is  an  ordinance  of  grace,  meant  to  bring 
man  relief  from  toil  and  to  be  fcr  his  good.  It  is  his  servant,  not 
his  taskmaster.  Thus  it  is  to  be  honoured  in  the  spirit  rather  than 
the  letter.  The  Rabbis  themselves  at  times  allowed  this  principle. 
Thus  the  Mechilta  on  Exod.  xxxi.  13  dwells  on  the  words  'holy 
unto  you,'  as  follows  :  '  unto  you  is  the  Sabbath  given  over,  and 
ye  are  not  given  over  to  the  Sabbath.'  For  God's  commandments 
were  given  '  that  man  might  live  by  them  '  (Lev.  xviii.  5) — not  die 
(Abrahams,  S/udies  in  Pliansaisni  and  the  Gospels,  pp.  129  f.). 
Wood  cites  a  suggestive  comment  by  A.  Sabatier :  '  A  saying 
wonderful  alike  in  its  depth  and  simplicity,  which  denies  not  only 
the  Pharisaic  idea  of  the  Sabbath,  but  also  the  scholastic  idea  of 
the  Church  and  the  absolutist  notion  of  the  State.'    In  Mark  only. 

28.  so  that  the  Son  of  man  is  lord  even  of  the  sabbath. 
^  Even  of  the  sabbath.'  even  of  an  institution  so  sacred  to  the  Jew. 
The  sabbath  being  meant  for  man,  and  man  not  being  intended  to 
be  its  slave,  the  Representative  Man  ('  mannes  sone,'  W3'clifFe),  he 
in  whom  the  Divine  creative  idea  of  man  is  embodied,  is  its  lord, 
not  its  servant  ;  and  so  his  disciples,  acting  as  such,  were  free  of 
blame.  Such  lordship  does  not  here  imply  the  claim  to  abolish, 
but  the  authority  to  adapt  and  fulfil.  The  real  purpose  of  the 
Sabbath  law  had  been  obscured  and  ovt  r  laid  by  a  mass  of  vexatious 
'hedges'  or  supposed  safeguards.  But  the  verse  is  possibly  a 
Christian  reflexion  which  arose  in  tradition,  or  a  gloss  from  Matt. 


ST.  MARK  3.  I.     XMk  141 

I^X^k j  ^.Yiifj  jjg  entered  again  into  the  synagogue ;  and  3 

The  fitness  of  its  deduction  (cf.  'so  that'j  from  the  principle 
just  appealed  to  by  Jesus  for  warrant  in  countenancing-  his 
disciples'  action,  as  a  justifiable  exception  to  a  current  application 
of  the  Sabbath  law,  is  in  itself  manifest.  Yet  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  Jesus  himself  drew  it,  in  replying  to  the 
Pharisees'  challenge  of  his  allowing  the  exception.  His  answer, 
as  a  defence  on  principles  in  theory  common  to  himself  and  them, 
was  already  complete  ;  and  he  was  not  likely  gratuitously  to  add 
something  which  advanced  a  claim  raising  a  quite  fresh  issue — 
virtually  that  of  his  Messiahship,  stated  in  a  most  challenging  form. 
For  to  claim  for  himself,  on  his  own  authority,  practically  to  have 
control  of  the  Sabbath  law — the  right  to  define  its  limits  of  appli- 
cation— would  seem  to  his  hearers  stupendous  arrogance,  save 
possibly  for  Messiah  ;  and  even  he  was  not  expected  to  claim  such 
authority  over  the  Law.  Such  a  claim,  then,  would  be  an  ex- 
ception to  Jesus'  practice,  save  at  the  close  of  his  ministry.  Hence, 
in  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  indignation  on  his  critics'  part 
(which  O.  L.  a  and  the  Diatess.  supply  from  iii.  2i\  such  as  is 
noted  in  the  parallel  case  in  iii.  6  after  a  much  less  aggressive 
defensive  argument,  it  seems  best  to  regard  this  inferential  conclu- 
sion as  due  to  Christian  reflexion.  It  probably  points  the  moral 
for  Christian  practice  as  to  the  Sabbath.  If  so,  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  this  verse,  connecting  the  title  '  the  Son  of  Man '  (in  Jesus' 
own  sense)  with  the  notion  of  '  man  '  as  such,  not  only  confirms 
the  view  taken  of  it  in  the  note  on  v.  lo,  but  also  shews  that  some 
early  Christians  (cf.  p.  128)  so  understood  Jesus'  use  of  it  in  non- 
eschatological  connexions  (see  also  note  on  iii.  28  for  another 
possible  case  in  Matt,  and  Lk.). 

The  omission  too  of  verse  27  by  Matthew  and  Luke  (as  by  D, 
O,  L.,  here)  may  well  be  due  to  its  use  in  Mark  as  a  proof  of 
Jesus'  lordship  of  the  Sabbath  qua  '  the  Son  of  Man '  in  this  very 
sense.  They  give  the  lordship  of  the  Sabbath  as  an  ipse  dixit — 
Luke  as  the  only  comment  added  to  David's  example,  whereas 
that  proper  to  Mark's  tradition  was  v.  27, 

iii.  1-6.  Healing  on  the  Sabbath  .'Matt.  xii.  9-14;  Luke  vi. 
6-1 1).  All  three  gospels  place  this  incident  in  immediate  con- 
nexion with  that  of  the  plucking  of  the  ears  of  corn  on  the  sabbath, 
to  which  it  is  logically  supplemental.  But  its  actual  historical 
place  may  have  been  somewhat  later.  Here  the  law  of  '  need  '  or 
'  mercy '  applied  more  urgently  than  in  the  former  case.  Action 
amounted  to  a  duty.  Hence  Jesus'  indignation  at  the  critics.  This 
miracle  is  a  fifth  cause  of  off'ence  with  Jesus. 

1.  into  the  synagog-iie:  ourtwooldest  MSS.  read  'asj'nagogue'; 
but  '  again  '  points  back  to  i.  21,  to  the  synagogue  in  Capernaum, 


142  ST.  MARK  3.  2-4.     X^^ 

there  was  a  man  there  which  had  his  hand  withered. 

2  And  they  watched  him,  whether  he  would  heal  him  on 

3  the  sabbath  day ;  that  they  might  accuse  him.     And  he 
saith  unto  the  man  that  had  his  hand  withered,  *  Stand 

4  forth.     And  he  saith  unto   them,   Is   it  lawful  on   the 
sabbath  day  to  do  good,  or  to  do  harm  ?  to  save  a  life, 

*  Gr.  Arise  into  the  midst. 


which  was  Peter's  home  and  round  which  the  ntcrnoiabilia  of  the 
early  chapters  of  Mark  seem  mostly  to  cluster.  The  time  is  not 
indicated  (but  see  v.  6). 

his  hand  -withered.  A  better  rendering  than  the  '  having  a 
withered  hand  '  of  the  A,  V.  The  phrase  suggests  that  the  man 
was  not  in  this  condition  by  birth,  but  had  become  so  by  injur3-  or 
disease  (atrophy).  Luke  says  it  was  the  right  hand.  The  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebreivs  spoke  of  the  man  as  a  bricklayer,  who 
asked  to  be  cured  that  he  might  be  able  to  work  for  his  living. 

2.  watched  hiia.  The  word  implies  minute  observation,  here 
evidently  with  hostile  intent — for  the  first  time  according  to 
Mark's  narrative.  The  traditional  law  allowed  the  giving  of  relief 
only  when  life  was  in  danger.  In  a  case  like  the  present  there 
was  no  immediate  danger ;  it  was  a  breach  of  the  law,  therefore, 
according  to  the  scribes,  to  do  anything  for  the  cure  of  the  sufferer 
until  the  sabbath  was  over.  These  jealous  watchers  rather  ex- 
pected Jesus  to  act. 

3.  Stand  forth  :  rather  '  Rise  and  come  forward  '  (//'/.  '  into  the 
midst').  Jesus  sets  about  his  healing  work  in  a  peculiarly  public 
and  deliberate  way.  He  would  have  all  men  sec  it,  as  it  was  to 
be  a  test  case  of  his  principles  in  relation  to  the  sabbath,  and  so  of 
his  Gospel. 

4.  And  ho  saith  nnto  them.  From  this  we  should  infer  that 
Jesus  was  himself  the  challenger.  But  according  to  Matthew  the 
Pharisees  took  the  initiative.  That  suggests  that  its  compiler 
knew  and  partly  followed  another  form  of  the  story  (probably  a 
part  of  the  common  Apostolic  tradition,  X  ;  see  also  the  extra 
matter  in  Matt.  xii.  ii  f.,  and  comp.  Luke  xiv.  5\  I.uke  tells  us 
that  Jesus  'knew  their  thoughts'  and  questioned  them. 

to  do  good,  or  to  do  harm.  The  words  may  mean  simply  '  to 
act  rightly  or  to  act  wrongly'  (of.  i  Pet.  ii.  15,  20).  They  may, 
however,  also  mean  '  to  do  a  service  or  to  do  a  wrong' ;  and  this 
is  the  sense  here,  as  appears  from  the  explanatory  words,  'to  save 
a  life  or  to  kill.'     As  to  the  allusion  in  '  do  harm,'  it  is  probably  to 


ST.  MARK  3.  5,  6.     XMk  143 

or  to  kill  ?     But  they  held  their  peace.     And  when  he  5 
had  looked  round  about   on    them  with   anger,   being 
grieved  at  the  hardening  of  their  heart,  he  saith  unto  the 
man,  Stretch  forth  thy  hand.    And  he  stretched  it  forth  : 
and  his  hand  was  restored.    And  the  Pharisees  went  out,  6 


abstinence  from  doing  a  possible  service  as  of  the  nature  of  evil. 
To  refer  it  to  the  will  to  do  harm  to  Jesus,  already  forming  in  his 
critics'  minds,  is  too  subtle  and  remote  from  what  was  on  the 
plain  surface  of  the  situation.  Matthew  introduces  here  Christ's 
words  about  the  sheep  fallen  into  a  pit,  in  which  he  appeals  to 
their  own  practice.  Thus  the  Law,  rishlly  understood,  did  not, 
themselves  being  witness,  prohibit  beneficent  work  on  the  sabbath 
— in  what  were  thought  to  be  cases  of  necessity. 

5.  held,  their  peace.     Only  Mark  notices  this  :  cf.  xi.  33. 

looked  round  about.  An  expressive  word  used  some  half- 
dozen  times  by  Mark  (iii.  5,  34,  v.  32,  ix.  8,  x.  23,  xi.  11),  and 
mostly  of  'the  quick  searching  glance  round  the  circle  of  his  friends 
or  enemies,  which  Peter  remembered  as  characteristic  of  the 
Lord '  (Swete). 

with,  anger,  being-  grieved.  Mark,  with  unembarrassed 
realism,  notes  the  normal  human  emotions — wrath  and  grief — felt 
and  shewn  by  Jesus  :  cf.  x.  14.  Anger,  as  righteous  indignation 
against  wrong,  is  an  essential  element  in  man's  moral  nature. 
Plato  gave  it  an  integral  place  in  man.  Butler  held  it  as  necessary' 
as  pity.  The  N.  T.  recognizes  an  anger  that  is  legitimate,  although 
in  human  nature,  as  it  is,  wrath  is  all  too  apt  to  pass  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  lawful  (cf.  Eph.  iv.  26).  '  Being  grieved  ' — more 
exactly  'grieving  for  (with)  them,'  as  one  interested  in  their  wel- 
fare— implies  that  Jesus'  anger  was  tempered  with  love  for  their 
souls  as  precious  in  God's  sight.      But  this  maj'  be  later  comment. 

at  the  hardening  of  their  heart.  The  word  denotes  the 
making  of  a  callus,  the  substance  that  unites  the  ends  of  a  fractured 
bone,  and  so  the  process  of  hardening  into  insensibilit}'  (cf.  viii. 
17).  It  is  just  'callousness'  that  is  here  involved.  The  'heart,' 
to  Hebrew  ideas,  was  the  seat  of  the  thoughts,  as  well  as  of  the 
emotions  stirred  by  them. 

Stretch  forth  thy  hand.  On  this  occasion  Jesus  used  no 
outward  means.     He  did  not  even  touch  the  sufferer. 

And  he  stretched  it  forth.  The  faith  that  made  the  man 
stand  forth  in  order  to  stretch  out  his  dead  hand,  and  attempt  the 
apparently  impossible,  was  very  real. 

6.  went  out,  and  straightway :  stung  with  the  sense  of  defeat, 
Ihey  lost  no  time  {eu/hus)  in  taking  steps  to  scheme  his  ruin. 


144  ST.  MARK  3.  6.     X^k 

and  straightway  with  the  Herodians  took  counsel  against 
him,  how  they  might  destroy  him. 

with  tlie  Herodians.  '  Herodians '  occurs  only  in  a  few 
cases.  They  are  referred  to  indirectly  in  Matt.  viii.  15  ;  and  in 
xii.  13  they  appear,  in  the  same  unnatural  alliance  as  I'.ere,  at  the 
final  stage  of  the  struggle  between  the  leaders  in  Church  and  State 
and  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth.  We  have  no  statement  about  them 
in  Josephus  or  any  writer  of  these  times.  They  may  have  been 
partisans  of  Antipas,  originally  of  Herod  the  Great — the  founder 
of  the  semi -foreign  (Idumseanj  dj^nasty  which  in  Jesus'  day  ruled 
as  '  native  '  princes  under  Rome.  In  temper  and  ideals  they  were 
a  political  rather  than  a  religious  party,  favouring  the  Roman  over- 
lordship  and  following  a  policy  of  compromise  between  strict 
Judaism  and  ideas  of  worldly  prosperity  at  any  price. 

took  counsel.  The  word  indicates  something  of  a  consulta- 
tion, though  an  informal  one.  It  points  to  something  more  than 
had  yet  been  done,  though  not  as  yet  to  the  deliberate  action  of 
a  central,  official  body  of  persons.  Between  Pharisees  and 
Herodians  there  could  be  no  natural  sympathy.  Opposition  to 
this  Disturber  of  the  existing  condition  of  things  brings  thein 
together. 

how  they  migrht  destroy  him.  The  Evangelist  may  here 
mistake  the  extent  to  which  the  plans  of  his  foes  went  at  this 
stage.  No  doubt  they  did  take  counsel  how  he  miglit  be  silenced  ; 
and  an  alliance  of  Pharisees  with  Herodians  for  the  purpose  would 
not  be  too  scrupulous  as  to  its  methods.  Yet  the  extreme  method 
of  '  getting  the  pseudo-prophet  out  of  the  way '  may  not  as  yet 
have  taken  shape  in  their  counsels. 

As  to  this  turning-point  in  Jesus'  outward  form  of  ministr}', 
Prof.  Burkitt  says  {The  Gospel  History,  p.  80;  :  'Here,  in  Mark 
iii.  6  .  .  .  we  have  our  Lord's  definite  breach  with  official  Judaism. 
He  left  the  Synagogue,  never  to  return  again,  save  once  at 
Nazareth,  in  his  own  town.'  Even  this  exception  is  doubtful,  in 
view  of  the  relatively  late  date  in  his  ministry  implied  by  the  scene 
in  ii.  18-20,  where  the  'taking  away'  of  the  Bridegroom  is  already 
in  sight.  Indeed  that  episode,  along  with  the  teaching  about  the 
Old  and  New  (21  f.),  may  well  iiave  followed  rather  than  preceded 
this  one. 

ii.   Second  Stage  :  growing  popularity  and  extending  scope 
of  Jesus'  mission,     iii.  7 — vii.  23. 

A  new  stage  in  the  work  of  Jesus.  Up  to  this  time  Jesus'  ministry 
has  been  purely  Galilsean  in  its  horizon,  as  well  as  in  its  scene. 
'Now  crowds  came  from  long  distances  and  from  all  parts'  of 
Palestine  and  its  borders,  drawn  by  the  fame  of  his  deeds  of  power. 


ST.  MARK  3.  r.     P  145 

[P]  And  Jesus  with  his  disciples  withdrew  to  the  sea :  7 


'  The  attention  of  the  religious  authorities  '  of  Pharisaism  '  at  Jeru- 
salem is  drawn  to  Him  (cf.  22).  The  work  of  Evangelization  ' — 
what  Burkitt  calls  '  the  revival  ministry  '  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
as  at  hand — '  is  shared  with  twelve  chosen  disciples.  The  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  undergoes  a  twofold  change.  The  seashore  and  the 
desert  [solitary  spots  where  large  crowds  might  listen  to  "  field 
preaching"  with  some  chance  of  attention  and  effect]  replace  the 
synagogue  ;  and  the  parables  become  Christ's  customary  form  of 
utterance.  How  long  this  period  of  wider  activity  continues  we 
do  not  know,  nor  is  it  quite  clear  at  what  point  in  his  narrative 
Mark  would  conclude  it  "  (Wood\  Perhaps  it  ends  with  ch.  vi. 
Then  ch.  vii.  1-22,  as  containing  Jesus'  final  exposure  of  current 
Pharisaism,  leads  on  to  his  retirement  from  public  work  in  Galilee 
as  a  whole  (vii.  24),  while  he  is  preparing  the  Twelve  for  the 
further  crisis  which  he  already  discerns  to  be  inevitable.  For 
before  it,  he  desires  to  feel  more  sure  of  their  real  faith  in  himself 
and  the  type  of  Messiahship  and  Kingdom  which  he  embodied. 

(i)  First  phase  :  iii.  7 — vi.  6a. 

(a)  iii.  7-12.  Jesus  shuns  con/lid  with  his  foes,  but  is  sought  out 
by  crowds  from  far {M.aX.\..yi\\.  1^-21. ;  cf.  Luke  vi.  17-ic;.  A  general 
description  of  the  position  in  which  Jesus  now  finds  himself. 

It  is  really  a  significant  transitional  section,  dealing  with  the 
next  main  stage  of  Jesus'  ministry,  which  opens  formally  with  the 
Call  of  the  Twelve,  and  contains  representative  incidents  in  an 
important  period  of  some  length,  during  which  his  popularity  was 
at  its  height.  This  editorial  paragraph  in  Mark  (which  is  fuller 
than  the  parallel  passages  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  which  are  prob- 
ably based  in  the  main  on  it)  '  is  made  up  of  popular  generali- 
zations, from  which  we  gather  that  Jesus  had  to  protect  Himself 
against  growing  crowds  by  retiring  from  the  cities  to  the  sea-shore, 
and  by  securing  a  boat  as  a  shelter.  His  work  of  healing  and 
exorcism  continues,  the  confessions  of  the  demons  becoming  more 
explicit'  (cf.  'the  Son  of  God'  in  iii.  11).  Such  demands  upon 
Jesus'  ministry  lead  naturally  to  the  setting  apart  of  the  Twelve 
for  special  training,  to  act  ere  long  as  his  delegates  or  missionaries 
('apostles'),  and  so  to  increase  the  range  of  his  ministrj'.  Matthew 
sees  fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  Jesus'  shunning  of  cheap  notoriety. 

7.  witlidrew :  a  word  suggesting  retirement  with  a  view  to 
avoiding  needless  friction.  Matthew  indicates  that  it  was  when 
he  knew  of  the  counsel  taken  against  him  that  Jesus  retired  from 
Capernaum.  We  have  here  a  general  statement,  covering 
apparently  (cf.  v.  8)  a  longish  period,  and  perhaps  one  extending 

L 


146  ST.  MARK  3.  8-10.      P 

and  a  great  multitude  from  Galilee  followed  :   and  from 

8  Judaea,  and  from  Jerusalem,  and  from  Idumsea,  and 
beyond  Jordan,  and  about  Tyre  and  Sidon,  a  great 
multitude^  hearing  *  what  great  things  he  did,  came  unto 

9  him.  And  he  spake  to  his  disciples,  that  a  little  boat 
should  wait  on  him  because  of  the  crowd,   lest   they 

10  should  throng  him  :  for  he  had  healed  many  ;  insomuch 
that  as  many  as  had  ^  plagues  c  pressed  upon  him  that 

*  Or,  all  the  things  that  he  did 
^  Gr.  scourges  "  Gr.  fell 


further  into  the  sequel  in  Marii's  narrative  than  is  usually 
recognized. 

a  great  multitude  .  .  .  followed.  Mark  brings  out  not  only 
the  largeness  of  the  following,  but  also  (as  Matthew  does  not)  the 
wide  extent  and  variety  of  the  territory  represented.  People  were 
attracted  not  only  from  Galilee,  but,  in  time,  from  Judaea  and 
Jerusalem  and  Idumaea  in  the  south,  from  Peraea  in  the  east,  and 
from  the  parts  about  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  the  north-west. 

8.  Idumaea:  the  Edom  of  the  O.  T.,  mentioned  also  by  the 
name  Idumaea  in  Isa.  xxxiv.  5,  6  (A.  V.  Edom  in  R.  V.)  ;  cf  Ezek. 
XXXV.  15,  xxxvi.  5.  This  is  its  only  occurrence  in  the  N.  T.  It 
denotes  the  territory  occupied  by  the  descendants  of  Esau,  origin- 
ally Mount  Seir,  but  after  the  Exile  part  of  Southern  Palestine. 
Since  the  Maccabaean  Wars  the  people  were  practically  included 
in  the  Jewish  nation  (Herod  the  Great  was  an  Idumaean),  and 
Idumaea  made  part  of  Judaea. 

from  .  .  .  toeyond  Jordan  :  that  is,  Peraea,  the  district  to  the 
east  of  the  Jordan,  lying  mostly  between  the  Arnon  and  the  Jabbok. 

a'bout  Tyre  and  Sidon:  that  is,  the  Phoenician  sea-coast,  to 
the  north-west. 

hearing  :  lit.  '  hearing  from  time  to  time  what  great  things  he 
was  doing,  came,'  i.e.,  their  arrival  was  the  result  of  rumours 
extending  over  a  considerable  time. 

9.  a  little  boat  should  wait  on  him.  Th*^  boat  was  to  be  in 
habitual  attendance,  in  case  of  need.     Surely  a  Petrine  touch. 

10.  plagues  :  //'/.  '  scourges,'  i.  e.  torturing  maladies. 
pressed:    /;/.   'fell'  on  him- a  picture,   in  a  phrase,  of  the 

eager,  excited  impetuosity  of  the  people,  which  was  like  to  crush 
him.  They  believed  that  if  they  but  touched  him  they  would 
experience  the  healing  power,  cf.  vi.  56. 


ST.  MARK  3.  11-13.     P  147 

they  might  touch  him.     And  the  unclean  spirits,  when-  1 1 
soever  they  beheld  him,  fell  down  before  him,  and  cried, 
saying,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God.    And  he  charged  them  12 
much  that  they  should  not  make  him  known. 

And  he  goeth  up  into  the  mountain,  and  calleth  unto  i.^ 
him  whom  he  himself  would :  and  they  went  unto  him. 


11.  nncleaii  spirits:  'demons,'  that  is,  speaking  through  the 
suflFerers  possessed  by  such  :  cf.  i.  23  S. 

fell  down:  rather,  'used  to  fall  down,'  that  is  in  homage. 
The  first  recorded  occasion  of  this. 

tlie  Son.  of  God  :  cf.  '  the  Holy  One  of  God '  (i.  24)  and  the 
title  in  v.  7.  Here  probably  it  has,  for  the  Evangelist  at  least, 
the  meaning  of  '  the  Messiah  '  (cf.  Lk.  iv.  41). 

12.  lie  charged  tliem  mucli.  Why?  Because,  as  Bengel 
puts  it, '  neither  was  this  the  time,  nor  were  these  the  preachers.' 

(b)    Typical  inddents  :  iii.  13-35. 

iii.  13-12.  Appointment  of  the  Twelve  (Luke  vi.  12-16;  cf.  Matt. 
V.  I,  X.  1-4). 

An  event  that  makes  a  great  epoch  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
All  three  Synoptists  record  it  and  attach  high  importance  to  it, 
although  they  do  not  all  introduce  it  in  precisely  the  same  con- 
nexion. The  work  of  Jesus  was  growing  on  his  hands,  the  feeling 
of  the  common  people  was  with  him,  there  was  much  to  do  for 
them  and  among  them.  He  had  crowds  following  him,  and  a 
certain  number  of  disciples  more  particularly  attached  to  him. 
The  time,  then,  had  come  when  there  was  need  of  a  fixed  body  of 
disciples,  whom  he  could  count  on  at  all  times,  to  be  with  him 
learning  his  ways,  with  a  view  to  assisting  in  his  work. 

13.  goeth  up  into  the  monntain.  We  read  of  his  going  to 
the  sea  (ii.  13,  iii.  7^  :  now  he  takes  to  the  hills,  as  Menzies  puts 
it.  'The  Mountain'  means  not  a  single  peak,  but  the  range  of 
hills  13'ing  west  of  Capernaum  and  the  lake-side  adjacent  thereto. 
The  confident,  unexplained  nature  of  this  allusion  points  to  the 
way  in  which  Peter  spoke  of  the  region,  and  taught  Mark  to  do  the 
same.  Luke  tells  us  that  Jesus  went  there  to  pra^',  and  that  he 
continued  in  prayer  all  night.  Thus  did  he  prepare  for  the  im- 
portant act  of  the  coming  day. 

calleth  unto  liim  whom  he  Mmself  would.  The  selection 
took  place,  Luke  tells  us,  at  the  break  of  day,  as  Jesus  came  fresh 
from  the  night  of  communion  with  God. 


148  ST.  MARK  3.  m.     P 

14  And  he  appointed  ''  twelve,  that  they  might  be  with  him, 

=■  Some   ancient  authorities  add  whom  also  he   named  apostles. 
See  Luke  vi.  13. 

14.  And  lie  appointed  twelve.  The  selection  was  a  tvvotbld 
one.  First  he  called  to  him  twelve  out  of  the  whole  body  of  his 
special  followers  or  'disciples'  ;  and  then  he  solemnly  commis- 
sioned them,  with  reference  no  doubt  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
The  regenerate  or  Messianic  form  of  God's  People  was  to  be  thus 
far  continuous  with  the  old  (cf.  Matt.  xix.  28  ;  Rev,  xxi.  14).  In 
this  too  we  see  how  significant  was  the  stage  now  reached.  Jesus 
judged  that  the  time  was  within  view  when  his  work  would 
assiame  a  really  national  scale,  and  he  would  need  the  co-opera- 
tion of  a  regular  staff  of  preachers  to  cope  with  it. 

Our  two  oldest  MSB.  and  certain  others  add  '  whom  also  he 
called  Apostles '  (a  word  used  once  in  the  LXX  for  a  messenger 
or  envoy,  i  Kings  xiv.  6 ;  cf.  Is.  xviii.  2  in  Symmachus).     But  the 
evidence  for  omission  is  very  early  (e.g.  Old  Latin  and  Old  Syriac) 
and  much  more  widespread  in  character.      It  is  also  supported  by 
internal  evidence,  including  the  difficulty  of  explaining  omission, 
while  insertion  is  easily  explained  by  the  presence  of  the  clause  m 
Luke.     The  tendency,  moreover,  to  dwell  upon  the  '  apostohc  ' 
office  early  became  marked  ;  and  the  absence  of  explicit  mention 
of  the  title  from  the  account  of  the  choice  and  appointment  of 
those  who  later  were  known  by  it,  would  be  felt  to  be  an  oversight 
which  might  usefully  be  rectified  (possibly  at  first  in  the  margin  of 
some  early  MS.).     Further,  while  Mark  has  an  informing  descrip- 
tion of  the  aims  which  Jesus  had  in  mind  in  appointing  the  chosen 
twelve,  one  being  '  that  he  might  send  them  forth'  {lit.  "  apostle 
them  "  or  "  make  them  his  apostles  "  or  "  missionaries"),  any  such 
characterization  of  the  meaning  of  their  appointment  is  lacking 
both  in  Luke  and  in  Matthew  (which  simply  states  that  he  gave 
<  his  twelve  disciples '  authority  for   exorcism  and  healing).     It 
looks  then  as  though  the  more  untechnical  and  descriptive  account 
in  Mark,  without  reference  to  any  title  borne  by  them,  reflects  the 
original,    historic    facts    more    faithfully,    Luke's   account    being 
coloured  by  the  later  fact  as  to  the  title  by  which  these  chosen 
disciples   were    known.     This   is  confirmed  even   by    Matthew's 
account,  since  it  says  '  Now  of  the  twelve  Apostles  the  names  are 
(not  "were")  as  follows,'  and  never  uses  the  term  'apostle'  of 
the  Twelve  in  the  sequel  :    Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  uses  it  in 
xvii.  5,  xxii.  14,  xxiv.  10,  in  referring  to  the  Twelve.     As  to  Mark, 
he  does  indeed  use  the  term  once  of  the  Twelve,  in  vi.  30  :  but,  as 
Dr.  Hort  has  pointed  out  (r/;c  Christian  Ecclesia,  Lect.  ii),  he  does 
.so  only  in  describing  the  Twelve  as  '  missionary  '  envoys  returned 
from  an  actual   mission  campaign  (vi.  7-13),  on  which  they  were 


ST.  MARK  3.  15,  16.     P  Mk  149 

and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  15 
have  authority  to  cast  out  ^devils:  [Mk]  ^and  Simon  16 

*  Gr.  demons 

*  The  above  authorities  insert  and  he  appointed  twelve. 


sent  with  instructions,  just  on  the  lines  only  foreshadowed  here. 
It  was  for  this  the}^  were  to  be  trained  by  Jesus'  society,  that  as 
occasion  arose  '  he  might  send  them  forth  on  a  mission,'  from  time 
to  time  (the  present  tense  of  'habit'  should  be  noted). 

Mark's  exclusive  name  for  this  inner  circle^  as  such,  is  '  the 
Twelve,'  a  very  simple  and  natural  title,  which  Matthew  never 
uses  without  '  disciples '  added.  Luke  has  it  (save  as  dependent 
on  Mark)  only  twice,  viii.  i,  ix.  12 — both  passages  where  he  seems 
to  have  a  special  document  other  than  Mark  at  his  disposal. 
Finally  the  fact  that,  between  verses  15  and  16,  the  words  '  so  he 
appointed  "the  Twelve"'  are  read  only  by  the  same  group  of 
MSS.,  seemingly  in  order  to  mend  the  awkward  grammar  of 
Mark's  text  as  found  in  the  rest  of  our  MSS.,  tends  to  confirm  the 
view  that  in  both  cases  we  have  to  do  with  a  scholarly  '  improve- 
ment' added  at  a  later  period,  for  purposes  perhaps  of  public 
reading  in  church. 

that  they  might  be  with  him.  The  Twelve  were  chosen  for 
two  great  purposes.  The  first  was  this,  that  they  might  be  his 
constant  associates. 

luigrht  send  them  forth:  the  verb  corresponding  to  apostle, 
as  'missionary'  to  the  Latin  for  'send.'  The  second  purpose  was 
that  they  should,  when  further  trained,  act  as  his  commissioned 
representatives  or  'apostles,'  from  time  to  time,  as  need  arose 
(frequentative  present). 

to  preach :  this  was  their  primary  duty,  the  proclamation  of 
the  good  news  of  the  Kingdom. 

15.  authority  to  cast  out  devils  ('demons').  Matthew  adds 
the  power  of  healing.  But  Mark  is  probably  correct  in  limiting 
their  mission  primarily  to  exorcism,  of  the  higher  t3'pe  practised 
by  Jesus  himself  (see  note  on  i.  39,  cf  25),  as  an  essential  con- 
dition of  preaching  to  this  class.  Such  authority,  then,  was 
connected  with  the  paramount  duty  of  preaching,  to  further  it,  if 
not  to  help  to  attest  their  commission  (yet  see  the  warning  in 
Luke  X.  20). 

16.  Simon  he  surnamed  Peter.  Four  lists  of  the  Apostles 
are  given  (Matt,  x  ;  Mark  iii  ;  Luke  vi ;  Acts  i).  In  each  case  the 
list  falls  into  three  groups  of  four  names,  having  Peter,  Philip, 
and  James  (the  son)  of  Alphaeus  respectively  at  their  head. 
Each  list  begins  with  Peter  and  ends  with  Judas  the  traitor.  The 
new  name  Peter,  Hebrew  Cephas  =  Rock,  expressed  what  down- 


I50  ST.  MARK  3.  17,  18.     Mk 

17  he  surnamed  Peter;  and  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and 
John  the  brother  of  James;    and  them  he  surnamed 

18  Boanerges,  which  is,  Sons  of  thunder :  and  Andrew,  and 
Philip,  and  Bartholomew,  and  Matthew,  and  Thomas, 
and  James  the  son  of  Alphseus,  and  Thaddseus,  and  Simon 


right,  rugged  staunchness  he  had  already  shewn  as  a  disciple  (see 
also  Matt.  xvi.  i8).  In  John  i.  48  the  giving  of  this  surname  is 
carried  back  to  the  occasion  of  Simon's  first  call,  as  there  de- 
scribed. But  that  is  hardly  likely  in  the  face  of  Mark's  narrative 
here  and  in  describing  his  call  (i.  i6fr.\ 

1*7.  and  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  Jolin  .  .  .  Here  'he 
appointed  '  must  be  supplied  in  thought,  so  bringing  the  list  as  a 
whole  (save  its  first  clause)  into  apposition  to  '  And  he  appointed 
the  Twelve,'  in  v.  14. 

Boanerg'es,  an  Aramaic  word,  explained  as  '  Sons  of  Thunder.' 
But  for  what  reason  the  title  was  given  is  left  untold.  It  may 
point  to  the  ardent  temper  which  shewed  itself  on  certain  occa- 
sions rcf.  Mark  ix.  38;  Luke  ix.  54).  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Gospels  or  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  to  shew  that  this  name,  though 
given  by  Jesus  himself,  persisted.  It  was  perhaps  dropped,  as 
capable  of  being  taken  in  a  bad  sense. 

18.  Andrew  :  separated  from  his  brother  Simon  Peter,  in  order 
to  bring  together  the  three  who  appear  later  in  Mark  as  sharing 
the  first  place  in  Jesus'  intimacy  (v.  37,  ix.  2,  xiv.  32)— an  honour 
shared  also  by  Andrew  in  xiii.  3.  The  punctuation  of  the  R.  V., 
viz.  a  semicolon  after  James,  and  colon  before  Andrew,  suggests 
a  greater  dissociation  of  Andrew  from  the  three  first  names  than 
the  Greek  warrants.  Dashes  or  marks  of  parenthesis,  for  the 
description  of  John  and  James,  would  be  better. 

Philip :  mentioned  together  with  Andrew,  as  of  Bethsaida, 
in  John  xii.  22.  Philip  is  not  introduced  again  in  the  narrative  of 
the  first  three  gospels. 

Bartholomew :  a  patronymic,  '  son  of  Tolmai.'     He  is  taken 
to  be  the  same  as  Nathanael,  since  John's  gospel  mentions  Na- 
thanael  twice  (in  i.  45  as  friend  of  Philip),  but  never  Bartholomew, 
while  the  others  speak  of  Bartholomew  and  not  of  Nathanael. 
Matthew :  see  note  on  ii.  13. 

Thomas,  meaning  'the  twin'  (Didymus,  John  xi.  16).  possibly 
of  Matthew,  his  proper  name  being  perhaps  Judas  Euseb.  Eccl. 
Hist  i.  13,  John  xiv.  22  in  Old  Syr.).  Of  him  we  see  more  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (xi.  16,  xiv.  5,  xx.  24  ff..  xxi.  2). 

James  the  son  of  Alphsens  :  as  distinct  from  James,  son  of 
Zebedee.  Not  the  same  as  'James  the  Little,'  brother  of  Joses 
(xv.  40),  and  son  of  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleopas  (John  xix.  25). 


ST.  MARK  3.  19.     Mk  151 

the  aCananaean,  and  Judas  Iscariot,  which  also  betrayed  19 
him. 

=•  Or,  Zealot.     See  Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13. 

Thaddseus.     Some  MSS.  read  Lebbaeus  (see  note  on  ii.  13'.. 
Allen   on   Matt.  x.  3  (Intern.  Critical  Comm.)  suggests  that  the      ^ 
name  Lebbaeus  is  here  due  to  a  mistaken  sense  given  to  Thad- 
daeus,  as  though  connected  with  the  Aramaic  for  'breast,'  fur  which 
a  name  formed  from  the  Hebrew  for  '  heart '  was  substituted. 

the  CananEean  :  not  the  '  Canaanite  '  nor  '  the  man  of  Cana,' 
but  an  Aramaic  word  =  '  the  Zealot'  (cf.  Luke  vi.  15).  He  may 
have  been  of  the  party  known  as  the  Zealots,  fanatically  patriotic, 
fiercely  opposed  to  foreign  domination.  If  so,  his  continued 
fidelity  to  Jesus  is  a  tribute  to  the  Master's  power.  Or  the  name 
may  indicate  simply  the  disposition  of  the  man. 

19.  Iscariot:  that  is,  'the  man  of  Kerioth.'  But  where  this 
Kerioth  was  is  uncertain.  A  Kerioth-hezron  is  mentioned  in 
Joshua  XV.  25.  If  Judas  belonged  to  it,  he  would  be  a  native 
of  Judffia,  and  the  only  one  among  the  Twelve  that  was  a 
Judffian  A  Kerioth  in  Moab  is  also  referred  to  in  Jer.  xlviii. 
24,  41.  If  this  were  the  place  in  view,  Judas  would  belong  to  the 
district  east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Thus,  in  any  case,  he  would  not 
be  a  Galilean,  being  possibly  one  of  the  many  drawn  from  afar  to 
see  and  hear  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  (iii.  8).  The  name  of  this 
Judas  is  usually  coupled  with  a  reference  to  his  treachery  (Matt. 
X.  4;  Luke  vii.  16;  John  xii.  4,  xviii.  2,  5;  Acts  i.  16).  Allen 
remarks  that  'no  parallel  for  such  a  compound  (one  of  two 
Hebrew  words'^  at  this  period  has  been  found'  ;  and  suggests  that 
'  it  may  be  a  transliteration  of  the  Aramaised  Latin  word  sicarius, 
an  assassin.'  This  word  found  its  way  into  Greek  as  a  name  for 
the  most  violent  wing  of  the  Zealots  (Acts  xxi.  28,  and  for  a  later 
period  Josephus,  Jewish  War,  vii.  10.  i  &c.).  On  this  view  we 
should  have  a  key  to  Judas'  action  (in  contrast  even  to  the  atti- 
tude of  Simon  the  Zealot)  in  betraying  Jesus  to  his  foes ;  see 
xiv.  10  and  note. 

Mark  omits  the  Great  Sermon,  which  in  Luke's  X  followed  the 
choosing  of  the  Twelve,  as  a  sort  of  declaration  of  the  principles 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  which  Mark's  plan  did  not  require 
him  to  report  (it  was  probably  part  of  the  practical  instruction 
familiar  in  all  Christian  circles).  Thereafter  Jesus  seems  to  have 
returned  home  without  observation,  possibly  to  instruct  the  Twelve 
privately  for  the  work  of  preaching  he  had  in  mind  for  them.  But 
his  presence  in  Capernaum  could  not  long  escape  notice,  and  the 
multitude  began  once  more  to  collect  and  demand  his  attention 
and  healing  ministry.  'The  place,'  however,  '  is  still  agitated  by 
the  recent  quarrel  (iii.  1-6)  with  the  religious  world.     The  Clergy 


152  ST.  MARK  3.  30-22.     P 

20  [P]  And  he  comethainto  a  house.     And  the  multi- 
tude cometh  together  again,  so  that  they  could  not  so 

21  much  as  eat  bread.     And  when  his  friends  heard  it,  they 
went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him :   for  they  said,  He  is  be- 

2  3  side  himself.     [X^kJ  And  the  scribes  which  came  down 
from  Jerusalem  said,  He  hath  Beelzebub,  and,  ^  By  the 

»  Or,  home  ^  Or,  lit 

—for  so  we  may  call  the  Scribes — have  now  definitely  made  up 
their  mind  that  He  is  a  magician,  working  by  the  aid  of  the  prince 
of  the  devils'  (Burkitt,  loc.  ciL,  p.  83\ 

iii.  20,  31.  Ititeyvention  of  the  family  of  Jesus.  A  short  para- 
graph given  only  by  Mark,  following  Peter.  There  is  nothing  to 
indicate  the  exact  time. 

20.  into  a  liouse :  not  home,  for  in  21  his  family  '  hear '  of  his 
doings  and  then  '  go  out  '  to  lay  hold  on  him,  arriving  on  the  spot 
only  at  verse  31  ;  probably  a  large  house,  see  verse  32.  In  any 
case  at  Capernaum  (cf  ii.  i). 

could  not  so  much  as  eat  bread.  A  graphic  touch,  recalling 
the  actual  scene— the  crowd  gathering  once  more  (as  in  ii.  2\ 
again  eagerly  and  tumultuously,  and  taking  complete  possession  of 
him,  so  that  he  had  no  opportunity  even  to  take  food  (cf.  vi.  31). 

21.  friends.  Probably,  as  suggested  b3'  the  'went  out,'  his 
relatives,  cf  31.  His  mother  and  brethren  were  apparently  now 
living  at  Capernaum:   cf  ii.  i,  15. 

lay  hold  on  him :  to  protect  him  from  his  own  want  of  care 
nnd  thought,  as  they  deemed  it. 

beside  himself.  They  took  his  utter  absorption  in  his  work 
as  a  sign  of  religious  frenzy.  Akin  to  this — as  a  misunderstanding 
of  Jesus — was  the  further  suggestion  made  by  his  religious  op- 
ponents, as  next  recorded. 

iii.  22-30.  Charged  by  scribes  with  working  by  Satanic  power 
(Matt.  ix.  32-34,  xii.  23-32,  43-45  ;  Luke  xi.  14-26,  xii.  10). 

22.  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem:  perhaps  at 
the  special  request  of  the  local  Pharisees  (iii.  6).  Matthew  speaks 
only  of  '  Pharisees,'  and  Luke  saj's  only  '  some  of  them.'  Matthew 
and  Luke  specify  what  led  to  this  accusation,  viz.  the  healing  of 
one  '  possessed  with  a  demon  '  and'  dumb ' — which  occurred  really 
a  good  deal  later  (see  vii.  32  ff,  esp.  37,  viii.  11  ff.  and  notes). 
Possibly  this  section  is  misplaced  in  Mark,  owing  to  the  like 
unsympathetic  suggestion  in  v.  2r. 

Beelzobnb :  rather,  '  Beelzebul.'  It  is  a  by-name  for  Satan. 
The  former  was  the  name  given  to  the  god  of  Ekron  (2  Kings  i.  6), 


ST.  MARK  3.  23-25.     XMk  153 

prince  of  the  ^  devils  casteth  he  out  the  *  devils.     And  23 
he    called    them    unto   him,    and   said    unto    them    in 
parables,  How  can  Satan  cast  out  Satan?     And  if  a  24 
kingdom  be  divided  against  itself,  that  kingdom  cannot 
stand.     And  if  a  house  be  divided  against  itself,  that  25 

*  Gr.  demorts 

and  is  thought  by  some  to  mean  '  the  god  of  flies.'  The  form 
Beelzebul  is  of  doubtful  origin  (cf.  note  on  Matt.  xii.  24).  Some 
take  it  to  mean  'the  lord  of  filth'  (=  idolatry)  ;  others  make  it 
'  the  lord  of  the  habitation  ',  whether  as  the  god  of  the  air  (Eph. 
ii,  2)  or  the  god  of  the  inhabited  world  (cf.  Matt.  iv.  8). 

By  (or  '  in  ')  the  prince  of  the  devils  ('  demons ').  He  exerts 
power  over  demons  by  league  with  their  prince.  It  is  the  same 
theory  as  the  mediaeval  one  of  '  black  magic,'  collusion  with  the 
powers  of  evil. 

23.  he  called  them  unto  him.  Jesus  hears  of  what  they  are 
saj'ing  to  the  people  behind  his  back,  and  meets  it  in  the  open  by 
calling  them  to  his  side. 

in  parables.  The  first  occurrence  of  the  word  in  this  Gospel. 
The  word  '  parable '  means  '  a  comparison ',  especially  in  figura- 
tive form,  a  simile.  In  the  Greek  O.  T.  it  represents  a  term  used 
for  proverbs  (i  Sara.  x.  12  ;  Prov.  i.  j,  &c.)  ;  dark,  enigmatical 
utterances  ^Ps.  Ixxviii.  2  ;  Prov.  i.  6)  ;  mystical,  prophetic  intima- 
tions (Num.  xxiii.  7, 18,  &c.)  ;  and  figurative  speech  with  more  or 
less  of  a  narrative  in  it  (Ezek.  xvii.  i-io).  In  the  Gospels  it  is 
applied  to  any  proverbial  sayings  (Luke  iv.  23),  illustrative  state- 
ments or  comparisons  (Mark  vii.  7  ;  Luke  vi.  39)  ;  but  usually  to 
comparisons  or  similitudes  containing  something  of  a  story.  Here 
it  has  the  more  general  sense  of  an  illustrative  analogy.  The 
Fourth  Gospel  has  allegories,  not  parables  proper. 

How  can  Satan  cast  out  Satan?  Only  Mark  gives  this 
question.  Jesus  uses  the  regular  Biblical  expression  '  Satan  '  the 
'  adversary '  (the  ordinary  Jewish  name  for  the  Spirit  of  evil).  In 
the  O.  T.  the  references  to  Satan  are  few,  the  most  definite  being 
in  Job  i.  6,  12  ;  Zech.  iii.  i,  2.  Jesus'  reply  is  an  effective  appeal 
to  common  sense,  what  we  call  the  rediiciio  ad  absurditm. 

24.  And  if.  Here  and  in  v.  25  the  'and'  seems  due  to  the 
Aramaic  element  in  Mark's  style.  It  appends  illustrations  to  the 
plain  saying  in  23. 

24-^6.  The  argument  conveyed  by  the  opening  question  in 
verse  23  is  first  developed  in  two  of  the  '  parables  '  or  similes  used. 
Then  their  application  comes  in  verse  26 — a  divided  kingdom  is 
doomed  to  ruin.  If  Satan  were  in  collusion  with  Jesus  and  lent 
him  his  power,  he  would  be  his  own  destroyer. 


154  ST.  MARK  3.  26-29.     X^k 

26  house  will  not  be  able  to  stand.  And  if  Satan  hath 
risen    up   against    himself,    and   is   divided,    he   cannot 

27  stand,  but  hath  an  end.  But  no  one  can  enter  into  the 
house  of  the  strong  man,  and  spoil  his  goods,  except  he 
first   bind  the  strong  matt ;   and  then  he  will  spoil  his 

28  house.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  All  their  sins  shall  be 
forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men,  and  their  blasphemies 

29  wherewith  soever  they  shall  blaspheme :  but  whosoever 


27.  the  strongr  man.  Another  succinct '  parable '  or  similitude  ; 
cf.  Isa.  xlix.  24,  25.  It  gives  the  positive  side  of  the  refutation, 
which  amounts  to  a  definite  claim  to  be  stronger  than  the  Power 
behind  the  Kingdom  of  evil,  in  virtue  of  his  real  alliance,  that  with 
God  vcf.  i.  9-12).  Not  only  is  Jesus  not  in  alliance  with  Satan, 
he  is  Satan's  spoiler  in  virtue  of  the  personal  victory  won  over 
him  at  the  Temptation  ^i.  13,  cf.  Matt.  iv.  14),  by  which  he  had 
bound  him. 

spoil  his  g'oods :  means  'make  spoil  of  his  possessions,' 
here  particularly  the  '  possessed,'  whom  he  had  got  into  his 
tyrannical  power, 

28.  Verily.  In  the  O.  T.  it  is  used,  as  we  use  Amen,  as 
a  solemn  conclusion.  In  the  Gospels  it  is  a  grave  and  emphatic 
formula  introducing  something  specially  weighty.  '  Like  one  of 
the  Old  Testament  prophets,  Jesus  repudiates  passionately  the 
denial  of  the  purity  of  His  motives.  The  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  seems  to  lie  in  the  moral  insincerity  which  prefers  to  con- 
found black  and  white,  rather  than  recognize  the  coming  of  God 
in  a  new  and  unexpected  quarter'  (Wood).  But  behind  this  lies 
the  great  fundamental  religious  issue  of  the  Law  as  conceived  by 
the  Scribes  and  by  Jesus  as  a  Prophet,  an  issue  which  constantly 
made  them  at  cross-purposes. 

All  their  sins.  The  point  seems  to  be  all  khids  or  classes  of 
sins,  with  special  reference  to  one  kind  oi'  class  which  might  well 
seem  in  themselves  worse  than  any  other. 

nnto  the  sous  of  men.  In  the  form  in  which  the  saying  was 
familiar  to  the  other  Synoptists  this  appears  as  '  the  Son  of  Man  ' 
(see  end  of  note  on  iii.  28),  and  the  sense  had  been  changed  to 
suit.  The  general  principle  is  turned  into  the  special  application  to 
hand.    The  later  Gospels  here  have  also  sayings  absent  from  Mark. 

hlasphemies :  in  the  more  general  sense  of  '  reviling '  or 
malicious  evil  speech,  of  which  the  scribes'  attribution  of  his 
deeds  of  mercy  to  an  evil  source,  with  no  ground  save  religious 
prejudice,  was  an  example. 


I 


ST.  MARK  3.  29.     XMk  155 

shall    blaspheme   against   the    Holy    Spirit   hath    never 


29.  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is,  however,  one  excep- 
tion to  the  general  assurance  of  forgiveness.  What  is  meant 
by  this  blasphemy  '  against  the  Holy  Spirit  ? '  Some  say  it  is 
something  peculiar  to  these  Pharisaic  slanderers  of  Jesus,  with 
nothing  like  it  under  present  conditions.  Others  think  it  has  no 
essential  relation  to  the  case  of  these  Pharisees.  The  truth  lies 
between  these  extremes.  These  scribes  had  seen  an  unmistakable 
instance  of  the  working  of  a  seemingly  holy,  supernatural  power, 
in  the  healing  deeds  of  Christ.  They  so  hardened  themselves 
against  that  witness  that  they  did  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  those 
deeds  of  goodness  to  Satanic  power,  rather  than  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  the  very  teeth  of  all  probability  save  that  due  to  prejudice 
against  the  teaching  and  personality  of  the  worker.  This  was  to 
sin  against  such  light  as  was  within  their  reach,  and  so  against  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  that  in  the  soul  which  makes  self-evidencing  appeal 
for  the  truth  visible  in  men  and  deeds.  Thus  the  sin  involved  is 
that  of  'calling  light  darkness,'  the  'woe'  on  which,  pronounced 
in  Isa.  V.  20  f.,  is  intrinsic  and  inevitable.  To  deal  thus  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  shutting  the  will  to  manifest  light,  reveals  a  mind  so 
self-willed,  and  so  dead  to  the  power  that  produces  conviction,  as 
to  lack  the  first  conditions  of  forgiveness. 

hath  never  for^veness:  a  true  rendering,  if  taken  in  the 
Hebrew  sense,  which,  like  our  popular  use  of  'never' — as  in  'If 
you  do  so,  I  will  never  forgive  you ' — is  not  an  absolute  one  but 
relative,  differing  with  the  context,  though  always  implying  an 
indefinitely  long  time.  The  best  translation  would  be,  '  shall  not 
be  forgiven  for  all  time,'  i.  e.  such  as  need  be  taken  into  account. 

The  phrase  R.  V.  renders  by  'never'  is  literally  'unto  (the 
duration  of)  the  age,'  the  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  le  '  olam  '  '  to 
(an)  age'  or  'forage-long  time,'  as  compared  with  some  limited 
period,  such  as  the  whole  or  part  of  an  individual's  span  of  Hfe  : 
see  Exod.  xxi.  6,  xl.  15.  The  latter  passage  is  most  instructive. 
There  God  appoints  the  Aaronic  priesthood  'unto  (  =  for)  the  aeon 
(or  duration  of  human  time"),  unto  (all)  their  generations  ; '  where 
the  parallelism  between  the  two  clauses  gives  the  meaning  of 
'  unto  '  (eis),  in  relation  to,  the  aeon  in  question  =  '  for  all  the 
aeon '  then  in  being,  and  not  '  unto  '  the  dawning  of  another  aeon. 
So  here  too  the  expression  points  neither  to  a  definite  end  to  the 
long  time  or  aeon  in  question — as  if  a  contrast  were  meant  between 
'  this  age  '  and  '  that  age  '  to  follow,  i.  e.  the  Messianic  age  of  bliss 
(the  two  being  separated  by  God's  day  of  Judgement  on  all  that 
had  been  done  in  the  former  one) — nor  on  the  other  hand  to  '  the 
age'  being  strictly  endless.  Hebrew  thinking  and  speaking  were 
not  couched  in  such  terms  at  all,  and  had  no  notion   of  '  eternity ' 


156  ST.  MARK  3.  30.     XMk 

30  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin  :  because  they 
said,  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit. 

or  'everlastingness'  in  relation  to  any  created  thing,  but  only  to 
God— from  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 

The  phrase  here,  then,  means  'never'  dunng  time,  as  man 
reckons  time,  as  distinct  from  some  day  during  the  hmited  time  of 
opportunity  for  moral  change  and  forgiveness  which  the  indi- 
vidual's hfe  on  earth  affords;  in  a  word,  'never'  for  practical 
purposes  of  such  reckoning,  never  within  all  the  human  norizon 
of  time.  Beyond  that  Jesus'  words  simply  do  not  look,  any  more 
than  did  the  thoughts  of  his  hearers,  or  of  Jews  generally  m  such 
a  connexion.  It  was  possibly  because  Christian  thought  in  certain 
circles  in  the  second  century  was  not  satisfied  with  the  loophole 
which  this  phrase  seemed  to  leave  for  some  forgiveness  for  such 
'blasphemies'  in  the  'age  to  come '-just  as  Matt.  ix.  32  has 
'neither  in  this  age  nor  in  the  age  to  come,  introducing  the 
category  of  the  two  '  ages'  above  referred  to— that  the  old  Mb.  U 
and  most  Old  Latin  MSS.  omit  the  whole  phrase,  as  being  a  dan- 
gerous qualification  (cf  Luke  xii.  10,  'it  shall  not  be  forgiven  )  : 

compare  next  note.  ,      •,,    , 

but  is  ^ilty  of  an  eternal  sin.  Here  'guilty  means 
literally  involved  in,  subject  to,  the  consequences  of  something ;  the 
rendering 'an  eternal  sin'  is,  in  view  of  the  foregoing  note  on 
'  unto  the  age,'  not  a  strict  one  :  it  should  be  '  an  age-long  sin  an 
act  of  sin  ihamartema,  not  hamartia)  with  enduring  results  1  his 
enduring  (cBoniayi)  quality  is  due  to  the  very  nature  of  the  sin, 
which,  though  a  single  act  in  time,  is  yet  the  final  issue  of  a  dis- 
position or  attitude  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  inspiring  source _oi 
sincerity  of  conscience  before  God,  and  so  means  a  definitive 
breach  with  the  God  who,  above  all  else,  '  desircth  truth  in  the 
inward  parts  '.  And  as  this  involves  a  process  of  gradual  spiritual 
insensitiveness  or  callousness,  a  self-induced  'hardening  of  the 
heart,'  it  means  a  loss  of  faculty  of  sight  and  feeling  as  to  the 
sinful  nature  of  the  act  in  question,  and  so  of  the  sense  of  need  lor 
its  forgiveness  and  a  corresponding  penitence— the  human  condi- 
tions of  Divine  forgiveness  and  moral  renewal.  A  sin  with  sucn 
enduring  efi-ects  inevitably  carries  an  enduring  punishment  with  it 

and  in  itself,  .  ,      ,  i   tu^ 

This  does  not  settle  the  further  question  whether  or  not  the 

1  That  cBonian,  the  adjective  from  cBon  as  used  just  above,  does 
not  in  itself  mean  '  everlasting,'  is  clear  from  the  phrase  '  before  times 
age-long'  ^^onian^  in  2  Tim.  1-9;  Tit.  i.  2  ;  cf.  Rom.  xvi.  25  0" 
Josephvfs,  Jcn.vish  War,  vi.  9-4.  a  certain  Jewish  leader  is  said  to 
be  put  in  ward  '  with  ceonian  bonds '). 


ST.  MARK  3.  31-34.     XMk  157 

And  there  come  his  mother  and  his  brethren;  and,  31 
standing  without,  they  sent  unto  him,  caUing  him.     And  32 
a  multitude  was  sitting  about  him ;   and  they  say  unto 
him.  Behold,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  without  seek 
for  thee.     And  he  answereth  them,  and  saith,  Who  is  my  33 
mother  and  my  brethren  ?     And  looking  round  on  them  34 

capacity  for  repentance  and  forgiveness  can  be  restored  b}'  some 
change  in  conditions  by  God's  act.  That  the  phrase  in  Mark's 
context,  however,  meant  something  final  and  so  strictly  'ever- 
lasting '  is  quite  likely.  For  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  whole  clause, 
emphasizing  the  force  of  the  foregoing  one,  is  peculiar  to  Mark  • 
and  it  is  very  possible  (especially  in  view  of  v.  30,  see  note  on  it) 
that  it  is  an  addition  to  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  words  in  their  most 
primitive  form  (prior  even  to  our  Mark,  see  the  Old  Syriac  in 
Burkitt,  Evang.  Da-Mepharreshe,  ad.  loc),  parallel  to,  and  having 
the  same  significance  as,  the  different  forms  it  assumed  in  Matt, 
and  Luke  (end  of  last  note). 

30.  because  they  said,  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit :  an  ex- 
planation added  in  tradition  or  by  the  evangelist  himself,  shewing 
how  it  was  the  enormity  of  the  accusation  made  by  these  scribes 
that  led  to  this  solemn  declaration  :  cf.  ii.  28. 

iii.  31-35.  Jesus'  Mother  and  Brethren  (Matt.  xii.  46-50;  Luke 
viii.  19-21).  Here  connexion  is  resumed  with  the  action  of  his 
relatives  in  verse  21. 

31.  his  brethren  :  named  in  vi.  3  (Matt.  xiii.  55).  They  are 
taken  by  some  to  have  been  half-brothers,  sons  of  Joseph  by 
a  former  marriage  (the  Epiphanian  theory)  ;  by  others,  to  have 
been  cousins,  sons  of  a  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary  (the  Hieronymian 
theory,  i.  e.  Jerome's  theory'  ;  but  by  most  modern  scholars,  to 
have  been  younger  brothers  in  the  proper  sense,  sons  of  Josepli 
and  Mary  (the  Helvidian  theory).  The  last  view  is  favoured  by 
the  natural  sense  of  the  word,  the  inference  from  the  term  '  first- 
born son  '  (Matt.  i.  25  ;  Luke  ii.  7),  and  the  mention  of  the  mother, 
with  no  hint  (in  Mark)  of  any  but  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word, 
along  with  the  brethren,  cf.  vi.  3. 

standing'  without :  unable  to  get  in  by  reason  of  the  crowd, 
they  send  a  message  to  Jesus,  which  perhaps  was  passed  from 
mouth  to  mouth  till  it  reached  those  immediately  about  him. 

32.  seek  for  thee  :  moved  probably  by  anxietj^  about  him. 

33.  answereth  them.  In  the  first  instance  those  who  conveyed 
the  message,  and  then  all  hearers,  the  mother  and  the  brothers 
probably  being  without. 

34.  looking'  round  :  to  indicate  those  he  had  in  mind  in  what 
he  was  about  to  say.     Perhaps  due  to  Peter's  eye-witness,  cf.  iii.  5. 


158  ST.  MARK  3.  35—4.  I.     XMk 

which  sat  round  about  him,  he  saith,  Behold,  my  mother 
35  and  my  brethren  !     For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of 

God,  the  same  is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother. 
4      And  again  he  began  to  teach  by  the  sea  side.     And 

them  whicli  sat  round  about  him. :  doubtless  the  disciples, 
as  his  words  imply. 

35.  the  samie  is  my  brother,  and  sister,  and  mother.     One 

of  the  most  characteristic  and  inspiring  of  Jesus'  sayings,  in 
which  he  '  enlarges  the  bounds  of  the  Holy  Family  to  include  as 
His  kinsfolk  all  who  do  God's  will'  (Wood).  There  is  no  harsh- 
ness in  this  declaration  ;  nothing  to  suggest  that  he  thought  of 
disowning  his  own  relations,  or  made  little  of  natural  human  ties 
and  affections,  or  bade  us  do  so.  But  he  gives  us  to  understand  that 
there  is  a  higher  relationship  still,  a  family  of  God,  bound  together 
by  ties  even  closer  than  those  between  the  members  of  an  ordinary 
human  family.  Kinship  to  him  is  not  by  birth,  but  of  the  Spirit, 
and  has  its  essence  in  a  like  obedience,  the  doing  of  his  Father's 
will.  The  reference  to  sisters  in  '  and  sister '  does  not  imply 
the  presence  of  natural  sisters  even  in  his  home  in  Capernaum 
(see  rather  the  note  on  vi.  3).  but  is  inserted  to  complete  the  idea 
of  his  spiritual  kin  as  inclusive  of  women. 

(c)  Teaching  by  Parables,  iv.  1-34, 
iv.  r-9.  Parable  of  the  Sower  (Matt.  xiii.  1-9  ;  Luke  viii.  4-8). 
The  beginning  of  parables  (see  notes  on  ii.  19  ff.,  iii.  23ff. ):  the 
pattern-parable,  and  one  of  those  which  have  a  place  in  all  the 
Synoptists  (though  Luke's  form  of  X  had  it  in  a  rather  different 
connexion").  Mark  gives  it  as  one  of  '  many '  that  were  spoken 
(verses  2,  33),  and  himself  reports  in  the  same  connexion  other  two. 
Matthew  gives  a  cluster  of  seven,  some  probably  spoken  at  other 
times. 

I.  Jesus  was  again  (ii.  13,  iii.  7)  by  the  lake,  and  had  resumed 
his  regular  teaching.  At  once  a  crowd  began  to  gather,  and  he 
betook  himself  for  freedom's  sake  to  the  boat  (cf.  iii.  g).  His 
teaching  now  took  the  form  of  parable  proper.  That  this  was  a 
change,  and  one  that  surprised  the  disciples,  appears  from  their 
question  in  Matthew  (  -=  its  X),  'Why  speakest  thou  unto  them  in 
parables'  (xiii.  10)  ?  Hitherto  he  had  taught  in  more  direct  terms, 
by  words  like  those  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  or  by  direct 
similes  which  explained  themselves  (iii.  23fT.\  But  he  had  now 
reached  a  point  in  his  ministry  at  which  he  had  to  deal  with  fresh 
aspects  of  the  Kingdom  as  he  saw  it.  These  were  so  strange  to 
most  Jews,  so  unlike  all  their  ideas  and  expectations,  that  he  had 
to  adopt  a  method  of  instruction  that  suggested  rather  than 
explicitly  declared,  so  that  each  might  the  better  perceive  that  for 


ST.  MARK  4.  2-8.     X^  159 

there  is  gathered  unto  him  a  very  great  multitude,  so 
that  he  entered  into  a  boat,  and  sat  in  the  sea ;   and 
all  the  multitude  were  by  the  sea  on  the  land.     And  he  2 
taught  them  many  things  in  parables,  and  said  unto  them 
in  his  teaching,  Hearken :  Behold,  the  sower  went  forth  3 
to  sow :  and  it  came  to  pass,  as  he  sowed,  some  seed  fell  4 
by  the  way  side,  and  the  birds  came  and  devoured  it. 
And  other  fell  on  the  rocky  groutid,  where  it  had  not  5 
much  earth ;  and  straightway  it  sprang  up,  because  it  had 
no  deepness  of  earth  :  and  when  the  sun  was  risen,  it  6 
was  scorched ;  and  because  it  had  no  root,  it  withered 
away.     And  other  fell  among  the  thorns,  and  the  thorns  7 
grew  up,  and  choked  it,  and  it  yielded  no  fruit.     And  8 
others   fell   into    the   good   ground,    and   yielded   fruit, 
growing  up  and  increasing ;   and  brought  forth,  thirty- 


which  he  was  spiritually  ready,  and  no  more.  It  only  gave 
glimpses  and  hints,  so  as  to  provoke  reflection,  and  gradual!}' 
make  a  way  in  their  minds  for  new  truth.  The  need  of  hearers 
meeting  him  half-way  with  their  best  attention  is  indicated  by  the 
opening  '  Hearken  '  (cf.  9). 

3.  the  sovrer.  The  scene  on  which  his  eye  could  rest  as  he 
sat  there  in  the  boat — the  cornfields,  with  soils  in  different  states — 
might  well  suggest  this  similitude. 

went  forth  to  sow.  The  sower's  hopes  as  he  '  went  forth  to 
sow'  are  suggested  to  the  mind,  and  the  hearer  waits  to  learn  how 
he  fared  in  the  sequel. 

4.  the  way  side  :  the  path  by  the  field  or  passing  through  it, 
beaten  by  the  tread  of  many  feet,  and  too  hardened  thereby  to 
give  the  seed  a  chance. 

5.  rocky  ground:  not  soil  merely  mixed  with  stones,  but  solid 
rock  (cf.  Luke's  'on  the  rock')  thinly  covered  with  soil.  The 
seed  might  penetrate  a  little  way,  but  could  not  sink  in  far  enough  ; 
and  so  it  would  germinate  quickly  after  a  superficial  fashion,  but 
would  speedily  be  scorched. 

7.  among"  the  thorns:  in  Matthew,  ^  upon  the  thorns. '  that  is, 
on  thorny  ground — an  unweeded  part  of  the  soil.  Thorns,  the 
ndbk  of  the  Arabs,  are  an  abundant  crop  in  Sj'ria.  They  look 
like  the  grain,  and  grow  with  it,  but  only  to  re\eal  at  last  their 
true  nature,  and  choke  the  wheat  when  it  should  yield  its  increase. 


i6o  ST.  MARK  4.  9.     XMk 

9  fold,  and  sixtyfold,  and  a  hundredfold.     And  he  said, 
Who  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. 


8.  tWrtyfold,  and  sixtyfold,  and  a  hundredfold.  Matthew 
begins  with  the  highest  degree  of  fruitfulness  and  goes  down  the 
scale.  Writers,  both  ancient  and  modern,  speak  of  the  extra- 
ordinary fertility  of  Eastern  soil  (cf.  Gen.  xxvi.  i2\  and  not  least 
of  that  of  Galilee.  Of  the  Plain  of  Gennesaret  Dr.  Robinson  says, 
'its  fertility  can  hardly  be  exceeded'  (^Bib.  Researc/ies,  ill.  285). 

The  soils,  therefore,  have  respectively  the  qualities  of  hardness, 
thinness,  foulness,  and  goodness.  The  seed  will  have  fortunes 
corresponding  to  the  soils.  In  one  case  it  does  not  spring  at  all  ; 
in  the  second  it  springs  but  to  wither  ;  in  the  third  it  springs  and 
grows,  but  yields  nothing  owing  to  the  choking  effect  of  rival 
growths  ;  in  the  fourth  it  comes  to  maturity,  and  to  an  increase 
varying  in  measure  according  to  the  different  degrees  of  the  soil's 
softness,  depth  and  purity. 

9.  Who  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear  :  challenging  words, 
reported  by  all  three  Synoptists  here  ;  spoken  also  in  connexion 
with  the  sayings  recorded  in  Mark  iv.  23  ;  in  Luke  xiv.  35,  after 
testing  sayings  about  discipleship  ;  in  Matt.  xi.  15,  after  a  saying 
about  John  the  Baptist  as  the  Elijah  of  Mai.  iv.  5. 

The  words  say  in  elTect :  '  This  needs  thinking  about :  it  bears 
on  what  concerns  you  nearly  :  don't  miss  the  lesson  for  want  of 
turning  things  patiently  over  in  your  mind  ' — what  elsewhere 
Jesus  calls  '  seeking,'  in  order  to  '  find '  for  oneself.  The  form  of 
the  challenge,  however,  implies  that  '  hearing'  to  efTect  is  not  a 
matter  of  course,  and  so  the  same  for  all.  It  depends  on  the 
hearer's  ears,  i.  e.  his  receptivity  of  soul,  over  which  he  has  some 
control ;  so  he  is  responsible  for  opening  his  mind,  by  the  use  of 
his  will,  to  the  truth  he  feels  vaguely  to  be  behind  the  half-veil  of 
its  parabolic  guise,  but  which  needs  moral  effort  to  think  out  and 
face  up  to.  IVhat  one  really  'hears'  in  this  sense,  tlierefore, 
turns  on  how  one  hears  :  so  the  more  explicit  warning  added 
in  23  f.  'See  to  it  what  you  hear,'  appears  in  Luke  '  See  to  it, 
then,  how  ye  hear.'  Accordingly  the  result  upon  his  hearers 
which  Jesus  here  had  in  view,  was  to  help  them  to  say  to  them- 
selves :  '  What  is  the  Teacher  trying  to  get  at  ?  There  is  more  in 
the  picture  he  has  put  before  us  so  simply  and  clearly  than  at 
once  meets  the  eye.     What  is  it?' 

When  we  ask  ourselves  the  same  question,  the  answer  is  fairly 
plain  in  the  light  of  the  whole  Gospel  story.  'Jesus  is  not  so 
much  teaching  here  as  reflecting  aloud  upon  the  results  of  his 
teaching'  (Wellhausen)  :  or  rather  the  former  rests  on  the  latter. 
This  parable,  in  fact,  is  a  transcript  of  Jcsus^  oivn  experience  as  a 
sower  of  the  seed  of  the  Kingdom,  a  preacher  by  word  and  deed 


ST.  MARK  4.  10,  II.     XMk  i6i 

And  when  he  was  alone,  they  that  were  about  him  lo 
with  the  twelve  asked  of  him  the  parables.     And  he  said  1 1 


of  God's  true  message  touching  it  and  His  people's  state  in  relation 
to  it.  That  experience  was  in  the  main  one  of  disappointment  with 
the  reception  it  had  so  far  met  with  (cf.  vi.  6).  It  had  been  partly 
negative,  partly  superficial,  partly  ineffectual  in  its  issue,  and  only 
in  a  relatively  few  cases  really  fruitful — and  that  in  varying  degrees, 
determined  by  the  measure  of  prior  moral  preparedness  for  such 
a  type  of  message. 

We  see,  then,  Jesus  at  a  very  important  and  significant  stage  of 
his  ministry  of  '  the  Word'  of  the  Kingdom,  still  hopeful  of  final 
success,  but  realizing,  and  taking  measures  to  make  others  realize 
(if  they  would),  that  the  task  before  him  and  them  was  a  more 
difficult  and  testing  one  than  had  been  provided  for  in  his  original 
method  of  proclamation  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  just  at  hand. 
It  was  not  going  to  carry  all  before  it,  at  once  rapidly  and 
thoroughly,  by  a  mass  movement  of  the  whole  nation.  If  it  was 
to  come  at  all  in  its  true  spiritual  sense,  it  could  only  be  by  new 
methods  of  appeal  entering  into  its  preaching,  methods  which 
threw  the  hearers  back  upon  their  own  moral  state,  so  as  to  face 
up  to  their  unpreparedness  as  they  were,  and  then,  by  earnest 
heart-searching  and  repentance  for  insensibility  to  the  Kingdom's 
real  nature,  become  truly  receptive.  But  all  this  meant  time,  as 
all  moral  processes  do  ;  j'es,  longer  time  than  even  Jesus  himself 
had  at  first  contemplated,  prior  to  the  experiences  of  his  mission 
work  ;  for  we  read  that  he  wondered  at  the  spiritual  slowness  and 
unbelief  he  met  with,  and  reproached  his  fellow-countrymen  for 
the  same  (vi.  6  ;  Matt.  xi.  16-24).  O"  ^he  whole  subject  of  Jesus' 
parables,  and  their  place  in  his  ministry  and  its  methods,  see 
further  'Teaching  of  Jesus'  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the 
Gospels,  vol.  ii. 

iv.  10-12.  The  purpose  of  Jesus'  Parables  (Matt.  xiii.  10-15; 
Luke  viii.  9-10).  This  section  (and  its  sequel  in  13-25)  is 
parenthetical  (cf.  vi.  17-29) — dealing  with  a  private  conversation 
which  really  came  later  ;  the  historical  sequence  is  resumed  at  26  ff. 

10.  they  that  were  about  him  with  the  twelve :  i.  e.  the 
larger  circle  of  habitual  disciples,  thus  described  already  in  iii.  34, 
along  with  the  inner  circle  of  iii.  13  f.  The  suggestion  of  E.  Mej'er 
{pp.  cif.  138  f.)  that  'along  with  the  Twelve'  is  an  interpolation 
from  a  separate  source,  from  which  came  also  11  f.,  is  really 
groundless. 

asked  of  him  the  parables:  so  Luke,  '  asked  him  what  this 
parable  might  be.'  In  Matt,  rather  as  to  his  new  style  of  teaching  ; 
'Why  speakest  thou  to  them  in  parables?'     In  Luke  the  query  is 

M 


1 62  ST.  MARK  4.  12.     XMk 

unto  them,  Unto  you  is  given  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom 

of  God :   but  unto  them  that  are  without,  all  things  are 

1 2  done  in  parables :   that  seeing  they  may   see,  and  not 

limited  to  the  meaning  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower  ;  and  in  view 
of  V.  13,  '  Know  ye  not  this  parable,'  it  is  quite  likely  that  a 
question  of  this  kind  really  constituted  their  inquiry,  here  described 
in  general  terms.  The  whole  idea  of  such  parables  was  not  clear 
even  to  the  inner  circle  of  Jesus'  disciples,  far  less  to  others. 

11.  Unto  you  is  given  :  rather  'has  been  given,'  as  an  abiding 
possession. 

the  mystery.  The  Biblical  sense  (cf.  LXX  of  Dan.  ii.  286"., 
47)  of  this  word  is  a  secret  that  is  told  or  is  destined  to  be  told. 
In  that  sense  the  gospel  (Rom.  xvi.  25  ;  i  Cor.  ii,  i,  7),  or  some 
particular  part  or  tnith  of  it,  e.  g.  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  (Eph. 
iii.  3),  is  a  '  mystery.'  The  latter  meaning,  viz.  particular  aspects  of 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  explains  the  form  which  the  saying 
assumes  in  Matt., '  to  know  the  mysteries'  of  the  Kingdom.  Mark's 
phrasing  makes  '  the  mystery  '  the  secret  of  the  Kingdom's  nature, 
received  in  living  experience,  as  a  gift  to  faith. 

them  that  are  without :  rather  '  those  others  ('  the  rest,' 
Luke\  who  are  outside  '  the  disciple-circle  (in  the  widest  sense). 
'Those  outside,'  or  'outsiders,'  was  a  Rabbinical  phrase  for 
Gentiles  or  lax  Jews  :  cf.  i  Cor.  v.  12  ;  Col.  iv.  5  (and  Lightfoot's 
note) ,  for  a  similar  application  to  the  distinction  between  Christians 
and  non-Christians.  Mark  alone  gives  this  phrase,  and  it  may  be 
an  explanatory  gloss  in  his  tradition,  added  to  Jesus'  reference  to 
the  multitude  simply  as  '  those  others.' 

all  things  are  done  in  parables  :  rather  '  all  goes  on  in 
parables,'  or  '  the  whole  (of  what  concerns  the  Kingdom)  moves 
\lit.  "takes  place'')  in  the  sphere  of  parables,'  the  sphere  of  the 
senses  rather  than  of  spiritual  perception — a  statement  which,  by 
its  general  form  ('  all  things'),  may  be  meant  to  cover  more  than 
Jesus'  teaching,  in  fact  his  whole  ministry,  the  meaning  of  which 
is  not  caught  apart  from  its  spirit  or  '  secret '  just  referred  to.  If 
so,  the  sentence  probably  owes  some  of  its  phrasing  to  Christian 
reflexion,  starting  from  Jesus'  own  words.  In  any  case,  as  he 
meant  it,  parabolic  teaching  has  a  helpful  purpose.  It  arrests 
attention  ;  it  wins  a  place  for  strange  or  unwelcome  truths  in  the 
mind  ;  it  illumines  and  illustrates  ;  it  helps  the  memory  and  stimu- 
lates reflexion  ;  it  guards  the  life  of  a  truth  until  it  can  be  received. 

Thus  far,  then,  the  essential  thought  of  the  verse,  apart  from  its 
verbal  form,  is  probably  due  to  Jesus"  mind.  But  in  that  follows, 
in  the  next  verse,  the  transforming  eflfect  of  Christian  reflexion  is 
to  be  marked. 

13.  that  seeing  they  may  see,  and  not  perceive.     Jesus  is 


ST.  MARK  4.  12.     XMk  163 

perceive ;  and  hearing  they  may  hear,  and  not  under- 

here  represented  as  making  use  of  certain  words  of  the  O.  T.  (Isa. 
vi.  9,  10)  which  appear  more  fully  in  Matthew,  and  speak  of  a 
blindness  coming  on  the  Jewish  people  as  the  penalty  of  the 
callousness  of  their  minds.  He  adapts  some  of  these  words  to  the 
case  of  those  who  crowded  him  and  yet  were  '  without.'  He  spoke 
to  the  dull  and  unawakened  in  parables  for  a  reason.  What  was 
it?  According  to  Matt.  xiii.  13,  '  because  hearing  thej'  hear  not' 
what  is  stated  in  more  directly  spiritual  terms.  Thus  his  speaking 
in  parables  is  expressed  as  a  iesiilt  of  the  people's  state.  But  in 
Mark  the  words  are  given  in  terms  of  purpose — '  thai  seeing  they 
may  see,  and  not  perceive.'  That  is,  the  words  of  the  O.  T. 
analogy  are  cited  (apparently  from  the  Targum  rather  than  LXX) 
in  their  original  phrasing,  but  with  its  forecast  of  the  result  turned 
into  a  statement  of  the  Divine  intention  in  the  matter  (cf.  i  Pet.  ii.  8). 

Such  a  view  is  alien  to  Jesus'  own  thought  here  as  elsewhere. 
The  primary  intention  of  his  parabolic  teaching  is,  as  is  said  plainly 
in  verses  21-23  and  implied  in  v.  33  ('as  they  were  able  to  hear' 
the  message),  a  positive  one,  viz.  to  convey  to  the  spiritually  dull 
'  the  Word  '  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  best  effect  (cf.  vii.  14) — since 
♦  truth  embodied  in  a  tale,  Shall  enter  in  at  lowly  doors '  {In 
Memotiam,  xxxvi).  But  this  could  come  about  only  by  the  im- 
proving of  men's  hearing  through  forcing  them,  by  the  very  form 
of  the  teaching,  to  be  and  do  their  best  in  relation  to  it  (cf. 
24  f ).  Thus  parable,  as  a  pedagogic  device,  had  indeed  also  a 
secondary  purpose,  that  of  protecting  the  precious  truths  it  en- 
shrined. It  saved  them  from  being  cast,  as  'pearls  before  swine,' 
to  men  in  a  state  utterly  unappreciative  of  their  nature  and  worth. 
But  this  is  not  a  penal  aim,  though  its  effects,  as  seemingly  ex- 
cluding many  from  '  understanding,'  may  have  come  to  be  so 
viewed. 

In  reality  Jesus  meant  even  the  negative  or  difiBcult  aspect  of 
his  parables  (as  requiring  pondering  on  and  gradual  divining)  for 
the  good  of  his  hearers,  i.  e.  to  guard  them  from  misunderstanding, 
by  jumping  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Kingdom  he  proclaimed  was 
none  other  in  nature  than  what  they  were  looking  for :  for  this 
might  have  led  to  ruinous  practical  results  in  a  popular  rising. 
Further,  as  Menzies  suggests,  where  his  thoughts  and  theirs  as  to 
the  Kingdom  were  so  different,  'he  could  scarcely  state  to  them 
all  that  bethought  about  it'  explicitly,  '  without  offending  them.  In 
a  parable,  on  the  other  hand,  truth  insinuates  itself  into  the  mind 
gently  and  produces  conviction  without  apparently  trj'ing  to  do  so.' 

But  all  this  still  leaves  over  the  question  whether  Jesus  himself 
cited  Isaiah's  words  at  all,  in  explaining  his  use  of  parables.  If  he 
did  so,  it  was  not  in  the  form  of  verse  12.  but  rather  in  that  of 
Matt,  xiii.  12  f.     There  in  verse  1 1  we  get  the  reason  why  parables 


1 64  ST.  MARK  4.  12.     X^k 

stand ;  lest  haply  they  should  turn  again,  and  it  should 

are  chosen  for  the  mass  of  hearers,  viz.  that  they  have  not  the 
initial  knowledge  already  vouchsafed  to  the  disciples,  on  the 
principle  of  fresh  light  being  given  or  withheld  according  as  a  man 
does  or  does  not  appropriate  by  use  ('  have  '  in  a  personal  sense) 
the  light  already  visible  to  him  (cf.  Mark  iv,  24  f.).  It  is  to  meet 
this  law,  by  so  putting  his  message  that  spiritually  unawakened 
men  shall  not  think  they  see  when  they  do  not,  that  Jesus  speaks 
(for  their  good)  as  he  is  doing.  'Therefore  speak  I  to  them  in 
parables ;  because  seeing  they  see  not,  and  hearing  they  hear  not, 
neither  do  they  understand.'  That  is,  their  state  forces  him  in 
mercy  to  adopt  this  method  of  arousing  their  spiritual  perceptions 
by  the  stimulus  of  curiosity  and  puzzlement.  That  is  plainly  Jesus' 
own  meaning,  as  expressed  in  Matt.  xiii.  11-13  and  as  implied  by 
the  warning  words  in  Mark  iv.  9,  as  also  in  24  f.  As  to  the  quota- 
tion, the  turn  given  to  it  in  Mark  may  well  be  secondary  and  due 
to  an  unconscious  change  in  the  tradition  as  known  to  the 
Evangelist.  In  support  of  this  view,  that  Jesus  did  not  really 
allude  directly  to  Isaiah's  argument  (even  if  he  used  some  of  its 
phrases,  as  in  viii.  18 — with  no  such  harsh  sense),  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  the  form  of  Jesus'  words,  so  far  as  common  to  all 
our  three  Synoptics,  is  not  at  all  close  to  Isaiah's  phrasing.  It  is 
'seeing  they  see  not,  and  hearing  they  hear  not '  (as  in  viii.  18) — 
that  and  no  more.  The  rest  varies  in  each  version  of  the  tradition, 
whether  as  to  the  amount  of  Isaiah's  language  used,  the  degree  to 
which  it  is  formally  cited,  or  the  way  in  which  Jesus'  motive  in 
employing  parables  is  stated. 

AH  this  points  to  a  special  factor  of  variation  working  in  the 
Christian  tradition,  viz.  a  change  in  the  understanding  of  Jesus' 
motive  in  the  matter.  The  change  was  perhaps  due  to  the  pro- 
gressive severity  with  which  Christians  generally  viewed  the  Jews 
who  rejected  the  Gospel  (they  were  no  true  Jews  at  all,  but  'a 
synagogue  of  Satan,'  Rev.  ii.  9),  not  only  when  it  was  presented 
by  themselves  but  also  by  their  Master  during  his  earthly  ministry. 
Paul  discusses  this  mystery,  as  it  was  felt  to  be,  in  Rom.  ix-xi, 
dwelling  on  the  Isaianic  idea  of  judicial  'hardening'  (e.g.  xi.  7f., 
25),  and  struggling  to  reconcile  it  with  his  firm  faith  in  the  justice 
of  a  merciful  God.  The  history  of  the  Christian  use  of  Isaiah's 
classical  passage  in  this  connexion  is  further  visible  in  Acts  xxviii. 
25-28 ;  John  xii.  39  f. — this  last  and  severest  statement  of  the  case 
being  clearly  the  Evangelist's  own  comment  on  the  fact  of  Jewish 
unbelief.  Jesus'  own  attitude  was  far  other.  He  distinguished 
broadly  between  the  people  generally,  as  simply  'blind'  and  so  to 
be  pitied,  and  those  who  professed  to  be  their  religious  leaders  and 
pastors,  '  blind  guides  '  of  the  blind  (Matt.  xv.  14  ;  Luke  vi.  39),  for 
whom  alone,  in  their  self-satisfied  and  superior  spirit,  he  reserved 


ST.  MARK  4.  13-15.     XMk  165 

be  forgiven  them.     And  he  saith  unto  them,  Know  ye  13 
not  this  parable  ?  and  how  shall  ye  know  all  the  parables  ? 
The  sower  soweth  the  word.     And  these  are  they  by  the  M>  i 


his  severity.  For  the  masses,  as  poor,  bewildered  '  sheep  without 
shepherd,'  he  felt  and  expressed  only  compassion.  From  his  lips, 
then,  such  words  as  those  attributed  to  him  by  tradition  in  the 
present  connexion  could  never  have  issued;  yet  he  may  well  have 
uttered  words  which  shewed  that  he  '  felt  that  his  mission  to 
Israel  was  strangely  similar  to  that  of  Isaiah  '  (Wood). 

In  this  light  it  is  practically  certain  that  Mark's  version  of  Jesus' 
words  has  here  undergone  alteration  (Allen  thinks  that  a  mis- 
understanding of  the  Aramaic  was  possible),  so  as  to  bringthefull 
theory  of  Isaiah's  words  (originally  used  by  Jesus  only  in  a  free 
way)  to  bear  on  the  disciples'  question  touching  his  reason  for 
now  adopting  to  a  further  degree  the  parabolic  mode  of  teaching. 
In  this  process,  Jesus'  real  motive — surviving  in  the  wording  of 
Matt.  xiii.  13,  and  implied  in  what  follows  even  in  Mark  (verses 
21-25,  cf.  Matt.  xiii.  14,  and  in  33)— was  first  obscured  and  then 
reversed,  judgement,  and  not  mercy,  becoming  his  ultimate  pur- 
pose. This  result,  as  regards  Mark's  account — where  otherwise 
the  inconsistency  of  verse  12  with  the  thought  of  verses  21  ff. 
would  have  been  plainer — was  facilitated  by  the  section  (13-20) 
on  the  interpretation  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower  intervening 
between  the  two  mutually  inconsistent  passages  on  the  theory  of 
parables  as  a  method  of  teaching.  As  it  is,  the  reference  in  the 
latter  case  to  this  problem  at  all  is  thereby  obscured.  Such  a 
parenthetic  episode,  rather  awkwardly  sandwiched  into  a  larger 
one,  finds  a  parallel  in  that  on  John  the  Baptist's  fate  in  vi.  17-29. 

iv.  13-20.  Interpretation  of  the  Parable  of  the  Sower  (Matt.  xiii. 
18-23;   Luke  viii.  11-15). 

13.  Know  ye  not  this  parable  ?  There  is  a  certain  contrast 
between  the  senses  of  'know'  (different  verbs)  in  this  verse. 
'Know  ye  not  (recognize  ye  not  at  once)  this  parable?  Then 
how  shall  ye  get  to  understand  all  my  parables  ? '  This  primary 
parable,  dealing  with  aspects  of  the  Kingdom  so  patently  before 
their  ej'es  and  so  thinly  veiled  by  the  parabolic  forms,  was  a  test 
and  measure  of  capacity  to  read  the  meaning  of  all  others  then 
spoken  or  yet  to  be.  The  criticism  of  the  disciples  here  implied 
is  one  of  Mark's  primitive  touches  which  fail  to  reappear  in  the 
other  synoptists,  who  shew  more  sensitivenessabout  what  reflects 
on  the  Apostles'  past :  cf.  iv.  40,  vii.  18,  viii.  17. 

14.  soweth  the  word.  The  great  subject  of  the  parable  is  the 
tvord^  the  Divine  message  which  Jesus  brought  to  men,  its  varied 
reception  and  the  meaning  of  this.    There  is  a  certain  awkwardness 


i66  ST.  MARK  4.  16-20.     X^k 

way  side,  where  the  word  is  sown  :  and  when  they  have 
heard,  straightway  cometh  Satan,  and  taketh  away  the 

16  word  which  hath  been  sown  in  them.  And  these  in  like 
manner  are  they  that  are  sown  upon  the  rocky  places, 
who,  when  they  have  heard  the  word,  straightway  receive 

1 7  it  with  joy ;  and  they  have  no  root  in  themselves,  but 
endure  for  a  while  ;  then,  when  tribulation  or  persecution 
ariseth  because  of  the  word,  straightway  they  stumble. 

18  And  others  are  they  that  are  sown  among  the  thorns ; 

19  these  are  they  that  have  heard  the  word,  and  the  cares 
of  the  *  world,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the 
lusts  of  other  things  entering  in,  choke  the  word,  and  it 

20  becometh  unfruitful.  And  those  are  they  that  were  sown 
upon  the  good  ground ;   such  as   hear  the  word,  and 

*  Or,  age 

in  the  form  which  the  tradition  of  Christ's  words  has  assumed  in 
Mark  (as  compared  especially  with  Luke),  due  to  the  mixture  of 
the  interpretation,  in  terms  of  men,  with  the  agricultural  imagery 
of  the  parable. 

IB.  the  way  side:  a  figure  of  the  spiritually  obtuse  or  callous, 
owing  to  the  soul  having  let  itself  be  a  sort  of  thoroughfare  for  all 
and  sundry  thoughts  and  feelings,  with  no  reverent  self-culture. 

16.  the  xoc)iy  places.  So  is  it  with  the  impulsive,  emotional 
hearer,  who  receives  the  word,  but  in  a  way  so  superficial  that  he 
fails  at  once  under  trial. 

18.  among'  the  thorns.  A  third  type  of  mind,  sympathetic  to 
the  message  and  responding  readily,  but  divided  between  God  and 
the  world,  and  so  becoming  '  unfruitful ' — reaching  nothing  worthy, 
in  life  or  service. 

19.  of  the  world :  lit.  '  of  the  (present)  age '  or  order  of  life. 
the  lusts  of  other  thing's:    rather   'the  desires,'  a  sense 

'lust '  once  commonly  bore. 

20.  the  good  ground.  The  mind  that  '  takes  in  '  the  word, 
keeps  it,  and  submits  itself  to  its  spiritual  action,  and  so  lets  it  bear, 
in  smaller  or  larger  measure,  its  proper  fruits  of  character. 

iv.  21-25.  T^^^  Purpose  of  Jesus'  method.  Responsibility  of  Hear- 
ing (Luke  viii.  16-18:  see  also  Matt.  v.  15,  x.  26,  xiii.  12  ;  Luke 
xi.  33,  xii.  2).  The  meaning  of  these  verses  depends  a  good  deal 
on  whether  they  are  taken  as  addressed  to  the  disciples  only,  as 


I 


ST.  MARK  4.  21-24.    XMk  167 

accept  it,  and  bear  fruit,  thirtyfold^  and  sixtyfold,  and  a 
hundredfold. 

And  he  said  unto  them.  Is  the  lamp  brought  to  be  put  ai 
under  the  bushel,  or  under  the  bed,  a?id  not  to  be  put  on 
the  stand?  For  there  is  nothing  hid,  save  that  it  should  22 
be  manifested ;  neither  was  anything  made  secret,  but 
that  it  should  come  to  light.  If  any  man  hath  ears  to  23 
hear,  let  him  hear.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Take  heed  M 
what  ye  hear :   with  what  measure  ye  mete  it  shall  be 

the  immediate  context  suggests,  or  rather  to  the  multitude.  This 
question  applies  also  *to  all  that  follows  the  explanation  of  the 
Sower,  down  to  the  end  of  the  whole  section  at  v.  33  f  :  '  And 
with  many  such  parables  was  he  speaking  the  word  unto  them,  as 
they  were  able  to  hear  it,  and  without  a  parable  was  he  not 
speaking  unto  them  ;  but  privately  to  his  own  disciples  was  he 
expounding  all  things.'  Here  *  unto  them '  plainly  means  the 
multitude  ;  and  the  two  parables  which  immediately  precede  must  be 
included  in  '  with  many  such  parables.'  Accordingly  the  multitude 
must  be  conceived  as  being  auditors  of  these  two  parables,  each 
introduced  simply  by  '  and  he  was  saying.'  Probably,  then,  in 
vv.  26  fi.  the  historical  sequence,  broken  at  v.  9  for  the  purpose  of 
explaining  the  Sower  and  its  lessons  (10-25),  is  resumed,  without 
explicit  notice  being  given — the  several  stages  of  the  parenthetic 
teaching  to  disciples  (alone)  being  marked  by  '  and  he  said  to  them  ' 
in  13,  21,  24.  Neither  Matthew's  nor  Luke's  form  of  X  seems  to 
have  had  at  this  point  the  matter  which  Mark  (?  his  X)  places  here. 
In  21-25  Jesus  is  represented  as  reverting  to  the  principles  of 
his  parabolic  teaching,  already  touched  on  in  10-12.  He  now 
speaks  of  its  final  aim,  and  next  of  the  hearer's  part  in  the  result. 
As  to  the  latter,  the  principle  quoted  in  Matt.  (xiii.  12)  in  a  context 
parallel  to  v.  11  above  is  here  (v.  25)  laid  down  in  conjunction 
with  a  kindred  maxim  (v.  24),  each  helping  to  elucidate  the  other. 

21.  the  lamp.  The  kind  of  lamp  that  might  be  seen  in  any 
humble  Galilean  house,  where  the  bushel  measure  also  would  be 
in  place  ;  a  simple  earthenware  saucer,  perhaps,  with  wick 
and  oil. 

22.  hid:  like  the  truth  embodied  in  parabolic  form. 

24.  Take  heed  what  ye  hear.  The  '  what '  depends  on  the 
'  how  '  of  the  hearing  (see  Luke  viii.  18),  in  keeping  with  the 
principle  which  follows.  The  '  measure '  of  insight  vouchsafed  to 
any,  in  this  matter  of  knowing  the  secret  of  the  kingdom,  will  be 
the  same  as  the  measure  of  honest  hearing  given  to  the  word. 


i68  ST.  MARK  4.  25.     X^k 

measured  unto  you  :  and  more  shall  be  given  unto  you. 
25  For  he  that  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given  :    and  he  that 
hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which 
he  hath. 


25.  Tor  he  that  hath,  to  him  shall  be  g^iven.     The  law  of 

Gain  or  Loss  in  spiritual  wealth.  True  knowledge  leads  to  more. 
Light  revealed  in  the  soul  is  only  made  one's  own,  so  that  one 
really  '  has  '  it,  by  the  exercise  of  moral  volition,  in  the  '  obedience 
of  faith.'  Then  it  becomes  the  basis  for  yet  further  light  break- 
ing on  the  mind.  But  where  there  is  no  such  moral  appropriation, 
the  man  '  hath  not '  what  he  '  seemeth  to  have '  (Luke)  for  a 
season,  and  in  the  end  the  light  fades  from  the  soul  or  '  is  taken 
away.'  The  context  in  which  the  maxim  occurs  in  Matt,  xxv.  29, 
Luke  xix.  26,  dealing  as  it  does  with  faithful  use  of  gilts,  is  perhaps 
the  original  one.  True  use  of  the  gift  of  light,  in  loyal  conduct, 
leads  to  larger  insight,  while  by  neglect  all  is  forfeited. 

iv.  26-29.  A  Parable  of  the  Kingdom's  Divinely  determined 
growth.  The  second  of  the  three  parables  here  brought  into  juxta- 
position, because  they  shadow  forth  the  things  of  the  Kingdom 
in  terms  of  seed  and  harvest  and  of  the  sower's  work.  That  the 
gradual  growth  of  the  Kingdom  is  in  God's  hands,  and  may,  even 
if  slow,  be  left  to  Him  without  anxiety  on  the  sower's  part,  such 
is  the  lesson  of  this  parable.  It  is  meant  to  teach  patience,  and  to 
answer  the  question  which  must,  as  Jesus'  ministry  of  proclaim- 
ing the  Kingdom  as  '  at  hand  '  lengthened  out,  have  occurred  to 
many  minds  :  '  When  will  it  actually  arrive  ?  Why  does  it  not 
come  quicker?'  (cf.  Luke  xvii.  20).  Nay.  we  can  hardly  doubt 
that  Jesus  here  gives  the  answer  with  which  he  had  calmed  and 
consoled  his  own  soul,  when  progress  was  slower  than  he  had 
expected.  This  parable  is  peculiar  to  Mark  ;  and  we  may  well 
believe  that  tlie  otlier  Synoptics  omit  it  just  because  it  represents 
Jesus  himself  as  like  the  sower  who  waits  on  the  Divine  opera- 
tions of  growth  in  Nature — without  himself  understanding  them. 
So,  the  parable  seems  to  imply,  was  it  with  Jesus  and  the  Father's 
laws,  governing  the  times  and  seasons  of  the  Kingdom's  growth 
(cf.  xiii.  32).  As  regards  the  attachment  of  this  and  the  next 
parable  to  the  foregoing,  so  forming  a  triplet  of  parables  on  funda- 
mental aspects  of  tiie  fortunes  of  the  Kingdom  in  process  of 
realization  among  men,  it  is  probable  that  they  were  known  to 
Mark  as  a  unit  in  Christian  instruction,  and  so  are  given  here  as 
though  two  of  the  'many'  parables  (v.  33,  cf.  2)  spoken  on  the 
same  occasion  as  the  parable  of  the  Sower.  But  to  judge  by 
internal  evidence,  which  in  the  second  case  is  supported  also  by 
the  far  later  context  in  which  it  appears  in  Luke  fxiii.  18 f.),  they 


ST.  MARK  4.  26-28.     P  169 

[P]  And  he  said,  So  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man  26 
should  cast  seed  upon  the  earth ;  and  should  sleep  and  27 
rise  night  and  day,  and  the  seed  should  spring  up  and 
grow,  he  knoweth  not  how.     The  earth  ^beareth  fruit  of  28 

*  OT,y{eldeth 


were  really  uttered  later  on.  They  seem  to  reflect  problems 
touching  the  Kingdom  and  its  fortunes  not  likely  to  be  dealt  with 
at  this  point  in  Jesus'  ministry,  when  as  yet  the  small  scale  on 
which  the  Kingdom  had  made  itself  apparent,  and  the  slowness  of 
its  progress,  would  hardly  call  for  notice  and  explanation.  From 
its  very  nature,  moreover,  it  is  safe  to  infer  that  the  former  of 
them  was  spoken  originally  to  and  for  disciples,  as  Jesus'  fellow- 
sowers  of  the  Kingdom. 

These  two  parables  would  be  a  great  practical  help  to  Christians 
of  the  Apostolic  Agt  amid  their  own  problems,  such  as  the 
unlooked  for  delay  in  the  Kingdom's  'coming  in  power'  ;  and  so 
Mark,  though  he  gives  very  few  parables,  included  them,  along 
with  the  fundamental  and  typical  one  of  the  Sower,  for  the 
encouragement  of  his  first  readers  (cf  note  on  vi.  17-29). 

26.  And  he  said:  i.  e.  to  the  multitude,  in  sequence  to  v.  9  ; 
not  as  in  v,  21,  with  the  hearers  defined  by  'unto  them,'  namely 
the  disciples  (as  in  the  foregoing  section),  but  quite  generally — 
'and  he  was  saying'  (imperfect).  The  context  alone  can  define 
alike  the  occasion  and  the  audience  :  and  this  is  given  by  Mark 
himself,  in  v.  33,  as  the  multitude  of  v.  i  f. ;  that  is,  the  thread  of 
Jesus'  public  discourse  is  resumed,  after  the  parenthetic  account  of 
his  private  teaching  to  the  disciples  occasioned  thereby.  Such  is 
the  idea  of  the  section  :  but  it  is  probable,  as  just  shown,  that  it 
brings  together  artificially  (originally  in  oral  tradition!  matter 
spoken  at  different  times,  but  logically,  or  in  subject,  closely 
related. 

a  man:  primarily  Jesus  himself  ;;cf.  29),  a  fact  which  may 
later  have  been  felt  to  be  a  difficulty  in  view  of  v.  27  :  hence 
perhaps  the  omission  of  the  parable  in  the  other  gospels,  helpful 
though  it  might  be  to  Christians  tempted  to  impatience  at  the 
seeming  delay  of  the  Kingdom  as  harvest. 

27.  and  rise  night  and  day.  The  picture  is  that  of  a  farmer 
who,  having  done  the  work  of  sowing  which  belongs  to  him  to  do, 
goes  about  his  ordinary  ways  of  life,  patiently  and  hopefully 
leaving  the  seed  to  the  action  of  the  forces  at  work  in  the  soil. 

28.  The  earth  heareth  fruit  of  herself.  The  heart  of  the 
parable  is  here,  in  the  spontmicous  (lit.  'automatic,'  or  self-moved) 
action  of  the  soil.     While  the  sower  waits,  the  seed  is  passing 


lyo  ST.  MARK  4.  29-31.     PX^k 

herself;  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn 

29  in  the  ear.  But  when  the  fruit  ^  is  ripe,  straightway  he 
t)  putteth  forth  the  sickle,  because  the  harvest  is  come. 

30  [XMk]  And  he  said,  How  shall  we  liken  the  kingdom  of 

31  God  ?  or  in  what  parable  shall  we  set  it  forth  ?  c  It  is  like 
a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which,  when  it  is  sown  upon  the 
earth,  though  it  be  less  than  all  the  seeds  that  are  upon 

»  Or,  alloweth  *>  Or,  sendeth  forth  "  Gr.  As  unto 


through  changes  which  are  independent  of  his  action,  but  due  to 
the  unaided  operation  of  the  forces  stored  in  the  earth  by  God. 

first  tlie  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear. 
These  hidden  forces  work  not  only  surely  and  effectively  but 
gradually,  carrying  the  seed  through  all  the  orderly  development 
of  blade,  ear,  and  full  corn.     And  this  means  seeming  '  delay.' 

29.  when  the  fruit  is  ripe :  lit. '  yieldeth  (itself) ',  or  '  alloweth'. 
Only  at  the  end  has  the  Sower  his  part  again.  All  through  the 
interval  things  have  gone  on  in  ways  unknown  to  him,  by  the 
operation  of  powers  hidden  from  him  and  uncontrolled  by  him. 

The  parable  is  best  described  as  one  of  the  Kingdom  as  related 
to  God's  ways  in  Providence.  Secrecy  is  not  the  immediate  point 
here.  It  is  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a  thing  working  quietly 
and  without  haste,  through  the  moral  forces  deposited  in  human 
life  and  society,  and  moving  on  to  its  assured  end  by  laws  in  the 
hand  of  God.  This  is  a  word,  therefore,  of  encouragement  for 
the  sowers  of  it,  when  inclined  to  feel  perplexed  and  restless  at 
its  seemingly  slow  progress.  The  Parable  of  the  Sower  spoke 
of  failure  and  disappointment  due  to  the  nature  of  the  soil  to  which 
the  seed  is  committed.  This  one  speaks  of  hidden  forces  beyond 
human  knowledge  or  control,  which  secure  the  growth  of  the  seed, 
when  once  it  is  fitly  sown,  and  make  certain  the  final  harvest. 

iv.  30-32.  The  Parable  of  the  Mustard  Seed  (Matt.  xiii.  31,  32  ■, 
Luke  xiii.  18,  19),  teaching  the  Kingdom's  boundless  capacity  of 
expansion. 

30.  Note  the  Hebrew  parallelism,  or  twofold  phrasing  ot  the 

same  idea.  . 

31.  mustard  seed.  This  simile  occurs  thrice  on  the  lips  ol 
Christ,  and  always  in  respect  of  its  smallness,  viz.  here  (with  the 
parallels  in  Matthew  and  Luke),  in  Matt.  xvii.  20,  and  in  Luke  xv"- 
6.  No  doubt  the  common  mustard-plant  is  meant,  classed  below 
as  a  garden  herb. 


ST.  MARK  4.  32-34.     XMk  171 

the  earth,  yet  when  it  is  sown,  groweth  up,  and  becometh  32 
greater  than  all  the  herbs,  and  putteth  out  great  branches  ; 
so  that  the  birds  of  the  heaven  can  lodge  under  the 
shadow  thereof. 

And  with  many  such  parables  spake  he  the  word  unto  33 
them,  as  they  were  able  to  hear  it :  and  without  a  parable  34 


less  than  all  the  seeds  :  that  is,  than  all  those  familiar  to  the 
Jews  of  Galilee. 

32.  E^reater  than  all  the  herbs  :  that  is,  than  all  that  had 
a  place  in  a  Palestinian  garden.  In  hot  countries  the  mustard  (one 
of  the  tiniest  of  seeds)  grew  to  a  great  size,  eight  or  more  feet  high  — 
as  tall,  we  are  told,  as  a  horse  and  his  rider.  It  is  relative  expan- 
sion that  is  in  view. 

birds  of  the  heaven  can  lodge  :  not  for  nesting,  but  rather 
for  rest  and  shelter :  of.  Ezek.  Xvii.  22  f.  for  the  idea  and  its 
meaning. 

The  point  of  the  parable  is  in  the  contrast  between  the  diminu- 
tive seed  and  the  great  increase.  It  is  a  word  of  hope,  needed  by 
the  disciples  in  particular.  The  kingdom  of  God  as  they  saw  it, 
even  later  on,  was  so  unlike  what  they  looked  for,  and  so  insignifi- 
cant in  its  appearance,  as  to  suggest  doubts  and  questions.  This 
parable  was  spoken  to  correct  that  mood  of  mind  and  give  the 
assurance  of  a  mighty  future,  notwithstanding  the  small  and  obscure 
beginning.  The  kingdom  would  yet  cover  the  earth  and  embrace 
the  nations  (cf  the  imagery  in  Dan.  iv.  42  ;  Ezek.  xxxi.  6,  12). 
The  growth  of  the  kingdom  of  God  had  already  been  set  forth  in 
the  O.  T.  under  the  image  of  a  tree  (Ezek.  xvii.  22,  24). 

iv.  33-34.  The  Method  oj  Jesus'  Teaching  at  this  stage  (Matt. 
xiii.  34,  35)  :  one  of  deliberate  and  careful  adaptation. 

Here  Mark  sums  up  in  a  few  general  words  the  rharacteristic 
nature  of  Jesus'  teaching  ministry  at  the  stage  now  reached,  before 
passing  on  to  other  aspects  of  it,  viz.  t^'pical  deeds  and  incidents  at 
the  same  stage  (iv.  35-vi.  6). 

33.  many  such  parables.  It  is  but  a  selection,  therefore,  that 
is  given  by  Mark  by  way  of  samples,  but  chosen  presumably  for 
their  practical  lessons  to  his  readers  also. 

as  they  were  able  to  hear  it.  Jesus  taught  with  a  wise 
adaptation  to  the  capacities  of  his  hearers,  in  form  and  doubtless  in 
subjects  also. 

34.  without  a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them  :  i.  e.  at  this 
stage  of  his  ministry.  Here  again  we  seem  to  get  Hebrew 
parallelism. 


172  ST.  MARK  4.  35-38.     X^^ 

spake  he  not  unto  them  :  but  privately  to  his  own  disciples 
he  expounded  all  things. 

35  And  on  that  day,  when  even  was  come,  he  saith  unto 

36  them,  Let  us  go  over  unto  the  other  side.  And  leaving 
the  multitude,  they  take  him  with  them,  even  as  he  was, 

37  in  the  boat.  And  other  boats  were  with  him.  And 
there  ariseth  a  great  storm  of  wind,  and  the  waves  beat 
into  the  boat,  insomuch  that  the  boat  was  now  filling. 

38  And  he  himself  was  in  the  stern,  asleep  on  the  cushion  : 

expounded.     The  word  is   one   used  of  the  '  resolving '   of 
difficult  matters  (cf.  Acts  xix.  39  ;  2  Pet.  i.  21). 

Having  now  defined  in  iv.  1-34  the  method  of  /cac/iiii^r which 
marked  Jesus'  ministry  at  this,  as  it  seems,  middle  stage,  Mark 
proceeds  to  fill  out  his  reader's  .impression  of  it  and  of  Jesus  him- 
self by  a  selection  of  typical  Deeds  and  other  incidents  illustrative 
of  his  unique  or  Messianic  power.  This  seems  on  the  whole  a 
section  based  on  Peter's  vivid  memories,  and  so  one  where  Matt, 
and  Luke  follow  Mark  closely. 

(d)  Expedition  to  the  East  side  of  the  Lake :  iv.  35-v.  20. 

iv.  35-41.  T/ie  Stilling  of  the  Storm  (Matt.  viii.  23-27;  Luke 
viii.  22-25).  Luke  agrees  with  Mark  in  introducing  this  incident 
after  these  parables.  In  all  three  Synoptists  it  is  followed  by  the 
story  of  the  '  Gadarene'  demoniac. 

35.  on  that  day,  when  even  was  come.  Mark's  note  of  time 
is  very  definite,  probably  because  echoing  Peter's  memory  here. 
At  the  close  of  an  exhausting  day's  work  he  proposes  to  cross  to 
the  other  side,  no  doubt  with  a  view  to  be  free  of  the  crowd  and 
obtain  rest. 

36.  as  he  was.  He  was  in  the  boat,  and  they  start  at  once. 
To  have  stayed  to  land,  and  make  any  further  provision  for  leaving 
their  home  base  for  a  while,  might  have  frustrated  the  whole 
plan.     As  it  was,  some  tried  to  follow  in  other  boats. 

other  boats.  This  is  noticed  only  by  Mark.  They  set  out, 
probably,  in  eagerness  to  follow  him.  Naturally  the}'  pass  out  of 
the  story  with  the  storm,  which  would  scatter  the  boats. 

37.  ariseth  a  gpi^eat  storm  of  wind.  It  was  one  of  those 
sudden,  fierce  squalls  that  sweep  down  from  the  heights  upon  the 
deep-set  lake,  through  the  ravines  that  open  out  on  the  west  shore. 

38.  he  himself:  contrasting  his  tranquil  slumber  with  the 
tumult  raging  about  him. 

in  the  stern,  asleep  on  the  cushion.     This  vivid  picture  of 


ST.  MARK  4.  39-41.     XMk  173 

and  they  awake  him,  and  say  unto  him,  *  Master,  carest 
thou  not  that  we  perish  ?     And  he  awoke,  and  rebuked  39 
the  wind,  and  said  unto  the  sea,  Peace,  be  still.     And 
the  wind  ceased,  and  there  w-as  a  great  calm.     And  he  40 
said  unto  them,  Why  are  ye  fearful?   have  ye  not  yet 
faith?     And  they  feared  exceedingly,  and  said  one  to  41 
another,  Who  then  is  this,  that  even  the  wind  and  the 
sea  obey  him  ? 

*  Or,  Teacher 


his  position  is  given  by  Mark  alone — surely  from  Peter's  memory. 
'  In  the  stern,'  where  he  could  rest,  out  of  the  way  of  those  hand- 
ling the  boat.  '  Asleep,'  because  weary  and  needing  rest  ;  so  fast 
asleep,  too,  as  to  be  unwakened  by  the  tempest.  '  The  pillow,' 
perhaps  the  leather  seat  of  steersman  or  rower  used  as  such. 

Master:  properly  'teacher,'  'Rabbi.' 

carest  tliou  not  ?  Fear  gives  the  appeal  a  touch  of  reproach 
in  it,  which  does  not  reappear  in  Matthew  or  in  Luke. 

39.  rebuked  the  wind.  All  three  Synoptists  notice  the  fact  : 
Mark  alone  gives  the  terms  of  the  command  addressed  to  the  sea. 

toe  still:  lit.  'be  muzzled  (forthwith),'  as  if  the  sea  were 
a  raging,  roaring  beast.  '  The  sea  and  the  wind  are  personified  : 
tliis  dramatic  way  of  speech  is  characteristically  oriental'  (A.  F. 
Hort)  :  see  41,  and  cf.  xi.  14,  23,  for  such  addresses  to  impersonal 
objects.  This  seems  better  than  to  suppose  an  evil  spirit  to  be 
addressed,  as  in  i.  25  (when  the  context  makes  the  meaning 
plain)  :  cf.  the  next  note. 

ceased:  lit.  'grew  weary,'  a  picturesque  word,  expressing 
cessation  from  tiring  exertion.  'The  personification  is  kept  up' 
(Hort).  The  lake  sank  back  forthwith,  like  an  exhausted  creature, 
into  motionless  repose. 

40.  have  ye  not  yet  faith  ?  i.  e.  in  God,  as  he  had.  '  Not 
yet ' — after  all  they  had  seen  in  these  man}'  days  of  association 
with  him.     Luke's  version  softens  it :   'Where  is  j'our  faith  ?  ' 

41.  feared  exceedingly.  They  are  mastered  now  by  a  dif- 
ferent kind  of  fear,  not  weak  timidity,  but  religious  a^ve. 

Who  then  is  this?  A  new  question  springs  to  their  lips, 
indicating  how  profoundly  they  are  moved.  A  greater  impression 
is  made  upon  them  by  this  incident  than  by  any  other  thej'  have 
yet  witnessed.  It  came  home  to  themselves,  as  concerned  ^vith 
those  uncontrollable  forces  of  nature  which  put  their  dread  on 
fisher-folk  like  them.  To  be  master  of  these,  through  reliance  on 
God,  meant  more  to  them  than  even  mastery  over  demoniacs. 


174  ST.  MARK  5.  1-4.     X^k 

5      [X^k]  And  they  came  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea, 

2  into  the  country  of  the  Gerasenes.     And  when  he  was 
come  out  of  the  boat,  <*  straightway  there  met  him  out  of 

3  the  tombs  a  man  with  an  unclean  spirit,  who  had  his 
dwelling  in  the  tombs  :   and  no  man  could  any  more 

4  bind  him,  no,  not  with  a  chain ;    because  that  he  had 

"■  Omitted  by  our  oldest  authorities. 

V.  1-20.      The  Gerasene  Demoniac  (Matt.  viii.  28-32 ;  Luke  viii. 
26-33). 

1.  the  other  side  of  the  sea:  the  eastern  side,  where  there 
was  a  far  larger  non-Jewish  population. 

the  country  of  the  Gerasenes.  The  question  of  the  locality 
is  one  of  great  difficulty,  in  respect  both  of  topography  and  of 
variation  in  the  text.  The  ancient  MSS.  differ  greatly  in  all  three 
Synoptic  Gospels  ;  and  they  differ  in  such  a  way  as  to  point  to 
a  different  designation  of  the  place  in  the  traditions  known  to 
Mark  and  Matthew.  'Gadarenes'  is  the  reading  of  Matthew; 
'  Gerasenes '  is  that  of  Mark  and  Luke.  '  Gergesenes '  is  an 
inferior  reading  in  all  three,  being  probably  a  copyist's  mistaken 
identification  (after  Origen  and  Jerome  who  know  a  Gergesa  near 
the  Lake).  What  is  the  place  in  view?  It  cannot  be  the  Gerasa 
in  Gilead,  now  identified  with  Jerash  ;  for  that  is  some  twenty 
miles  east  of  the  Jordan.  Nor  can  it  well  be  the  Gadara  which 
Matthew's  reading  might  suggest,  now  identified  with  Um-Keiss  ; 
for  that  was  at  least  six  miles  south  of  the  lake,  and  was  separated 
by  a  deep  gorge  from  the  plain  sloping  down  to  the  lake.  The 
conditions  of  the  narrative  are  best  fulfilled  by  a  certain  Khersa 
(=  Gerasa),  the  ruins  of  which  remain,  occupying  a  site  sufficiently 
near  the  sea,  shewing  traces  of  tombs,  and  within  about  a  mile  of 
the  point  at  which  the  hills  descend  by  a  steep,  even  slope,  to 
within  forty  feet  of  the  water's  edge.  The  district  known  as  '  the 
country  of  the  Gadarenes '  may  have  extended  to  the  lake,  and  so 
have  included  this  Khersa. 

3.  tombs.  The  man  had  his  dwelling  in  these  (thought  to  be 
haunted  by  the  spirits  of  the  dead),  and  now  came  from  them. 
Probably  they  were  caves  in  the  rocks,  natural  or  excavated.  To 
touch  a  dead  body  or  a  grave  was  to  become  '  unclean  '  according 
to  the  Jewish  Law  (Num.  xix,  ii,  16). 

no  man  could  any  more  bind  him.  To  such  a  pass  had  it 
come  with  him  that  he  was  now  beyond  all  restraint.  Not  even 
fetters  could  hold  him.     It  had  often  been  tried,  but  to  no  purpose. 

4.  A  vivid  description  of  frenzied  strength  :  he  was  untamable 
as  a  wild  beast  (cf.  James  iii.  7). 


ST.  MARK  5.  5-9.     XMk  1^5 

been  often  bound  with  fetters  and  chains,  and  the  chains 
had  been  rent  asunder  by  him,  and  the  fetters  broken  in 
pieces  :  and  no  man  had  strength  to  tame  him.     And  5 
always,  night  and  day,  in  the  tombs  and  in  the  moun- 
tains, he  was  crying  out,  and  cutting  himself  with  stones. 
And  when  he  saw  Jesus  from  afar,  he  ran  and  worshipped  6 
him ;  and  crying  out  with  a  loud  voice,  he  saith,  What  7 
have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  the  Most 
High  God?     I  adjure  thee  by  God,  torment  me  not. 
For  he  said  unto  him.  Come  forth,  thou  unclean  spirit,  8 
out  of  the  man.     And  he  asked  him.  What  is  thy  name  ?  9 


5.  crying'  out,  and  cutting-  himself,  Mark's  is  the  fullest  and 
most  graphic  picture  of  the  terror  of  the  man's  condition.  Luke's 
'for  a  long  time  he  had  worn  no  clothes'  only  makes  explicit  what 
is  implied  in  Mark's  '  sitting  clothed,'  in  v.  15. 

6.  from  afar.     A  touch  peculiar  to  Mark. 

ran  and  worsliipped  him.  From  a  distance  catching  sight 
of  Jesus,  he  comes  bounding  on  in  his  madness  ;  but  when  he 
draws  near  him,  his  mood  changes  and  he  prostrates  himself  in 
awe.  For  the  sensitiveness  of  the  '  possessed  *  to  Jesus'  personal 
influence,  cf.  iii.  11. 

T.  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ?  There  is  here  the  same 
sense  of  incompatibility -with  Jesus  as  in  the  previous  case  in  i.  23. 

Son  of  the  Most  High  God.  In  a  former  case  Jesus  was 
addressed  as  '  the  Holy  One  of  God.'  Here  his  extraordinary 
rpiritual  influence  is  confessed  as  token  of  a  'Divine  Sonship ' 
(cf  iii.  11)  ;  and  the  God  to  whom  he  is  said  to  be  in  that  relation  is 
designated  by  a  name  which,  while  common  in  the  O.  T.  (LXX  of 
Gen.  xiv.  18  f.  ;  Num.  xxiv.  16,  Balaam's  prophecy  ;  Deut.  xxxii.  8  ; 
Ps.  xviii.  13  ;  Isa.  xiv.  14,  and  often),  is  not  distinctively  Jewish  in 
its  associations.  It  emphasized  the  supremacy  of  God,  and  was 
shared  by  pagan  religions  of  the  day  (cf.  Acts  xvi.  17).  It  was 
natural  then  for  one  dwelling  in  a  region  of  mixed  religious  faiths 
to  use  such  language,  just  as  to-day  some  Christians,  especially  of 
the  simpler  sort,  usually  refer  to  '  God  Almighty '  or  '  the  Almighty.' 

8.  For  he  said:  lit.  'he  was  saying',  in  the  intervals  of  the 
demoniac's  utterances  to  him. 

9.  What  is  thy  name?  The  question  is  put  perhaps  to  clear 
the  man's  mind  and  bring  him  more  to  himself,  and  so  under 
spiritual  control.  The  confusion  of  consciousness  is  seen  in  the 
mixed,  contradictory  utterances,  now  as  man  and  now  as  demon. 


176  ST.  MARK  5.  10-12.     XMk 

And  he  saith  unto  him,  My  name  is  Legion  ;  for  we  are 

10  many.     And  he  besought  him  much  that  he  would  not 

11  send   them  away  out  of  the  country.     Now  there  was 
there    on   the    mountain   side   a   great   herd    of   swine 

12  feeding.     And  they  besought  him,  saying,  Send  us  into 

Iiegion  :  the  name  of  a  division  of  the  Roman  army,  number- 
ing some  5,000  or  6,000  men.  In  appb'ing  this  name  to  himself 
the  possessed  man  appealed  to  Christ's  pity.  It  meant  that  he  felt 
himself  a  mere  congeries  of  uncoordinated  impulses  and  evil  forces 
— lacking  moral  unity  of  will,  and  so  not  one,  but  an  aggregate  of 
many. 

10.  them :  i.  e.  the  many  demons,  with  whom  the  man  felt 
himself  one  in  interest.  It  was  perhaps  this  expression  which  in 
tradition  gave  rise  to  the  notion,  reflected  in  Matt.'s  account,  that 
there  were  two  demoniacs,  not  only  one. 

out  of  the  country.  This  no  doubt  means  out  of  this 
Gerasene  territory,  which  he  regards  as  their  home-land — a  true 
touch.  In  Luke's  version  the  request  is  that  Jesus  should  not 
command  them  to  'depart  into  the  abyss,'  i.  e.  the  place  of  tor- 
ment in  the  nether  world.  Here  we  get,  once  more,  the  phenomena 
of  double  consciousness.  Mark's  account  voices  a  request  in 
terms  of  a  human  instinct  of  the  man  himself,  to  be  left  amid  his 
native  scenes,  which  he  proffers  in  the  name  of  his  comrades,  as 
he  feels  the  demons  to  be.  Luke  makes  the  '  demons '  control  his 
request,  so  as  to  voice  their  fears.  This  side  of  the  case  comes  up 
in  Mark  only  in  v.  12. 

11.  a  great  herd  of  swine  :  the  common  property  of  the 
village,  doubtless.  Mark  alone  gives  the  number,  'about  two 
thousand.'  It  is  not  stated  whether  the  herd  was  the  property  t  f 
the  Gentiles  or  of  Jews.  It  is  not  clear  to  what  extent,  if  to  any, 
the  keeping  of  swine  prevailed  among  the  Jews  at  this  time — at 
least  in  semi-Jewish  regions  ;  but  through  most  of  tlieir  history 
they  seem  to  have  avoided  it.  The  eating  of  swine's  flesh  was 
forbidden  by  the  Law  (Lev.  xi.  7  ;  Deut.  xiv.  8).  The  flesh  and 
blood  of  swine  are  regarded  by  the  O.  T.  as  heathen  offerings, 
offerings  of  '  abomination '  (Isa.  Ixv.  4,  Ixvi.  3,  17;  cf.  i  Mace. 
i.  47). 

12.  This  suggestion  implies  the  common  popular  belief  that 
demons,  as  incorporeal  beings,  must  have  an  animal  organism  of 
some  kind,  but  not  necessarily  a  human  one,  if  they  are  to  remain 
contentedly  (Luke  xi.  24,  '  seeking  rest')  on  earth  as  distinct  from 
some  incorporeal  sphere,  whether  above  (in  '  the  air,'  cf.  '  the 
prince  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  air,'  Eph.  ii.  2)  or  below  ('the 
abyss'  of  woe,  Rev.  ix.  i  f.,  xx.  3).     It  is  premature  consignment 


ST.  MARK  5.  13-16.     XMk  177 

the  swine,  that  we  may  enter  into  them.     And  he  gave  13 
them  leave.     And  the  unclean  spirits   came   out,   and 
entered  into  the  swine :  and  the  herd  rushed  down  the 
steep  into  the  sea,  in  manber  about  two  thousand ;  and 
they  were  choked  in  the  sea.     And  they  that  fed  them  14 
fled,  and  told  it  in  the  city,  and  in  the  country.     And 
they  came  to  see  what  it  was  that  had  come  to  pass. 
And  they  come  to  Jesus,  and  behold  ^him  that  was  15 
possessed  with  devils   sitting,  clothed  and  in  his  right 
mind,  even  him  that  had  the  legion  :    and  they  were 
afraid.     And  they  that  saw  it  declared  unto  them  how  i6 
it   befell   '*■  him    that   was    possessed   with    devils,    and 

^  Or,  the  demoniac 

to  the  latter,  '  before  the  time'  (Matt.  viii.  29),  that  these  demons 
are  represented  by  Luke  as  fearing.  The  whole  stor^'  is  told  in 
terms  of  popular  beliefs,  not  necessarily  all  of  them  shared  by 
Jesus  nor  even  part  of  the  episode  as  enacted. 

13.  gave  them  leave.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  Mark  (and 
Luke\  as  distinct  from  Matt.,  Jesus'  part  in  what  follows  is  merely 
permissive.  That  is,  he  said  no  word  enjoining  what  the  man 
suggested  on  the  demon's  behalf.  Possibly  he  meant  simply  to 
soothe  the  man,  by  formal  aquiescence,  without  sanctioning  his 
belief  as  to  the  swine.  This  bears  on  what  ensued  and  on  the 
difficulty  supposed  to  be  created  by  the  destruction  of  property. 

the  herd  rushed  down  the  steep  into  the  sea.  The  lie  of 
the  land  near  Khersa  suits  such  an  occurrence  (see  The  Rob  Roy 
on  the  Jordan,  p.  411).  Whatever  the  real  cause  of  this  stampede 
of  the  herd,  that  Jesus  contemplated  such  a  result  of  the  '  per- 
mission '  just  described  is  not  said,  nor  need  it  be  taken  as  implied. 
The  case,  therefore,  is  so  far  different  from  the  one  other  incident 
involving  destruction  which  is  traced  to  Jesus'  word  of  power  in 
this  Gospel,  namely  the  withering  of  the  fig-tree  in  ch.  xi.  20-23 
(yet  see  notes  there). 

14.  they  came  to  see.  These  would  be  the  people  of  the 
town  and  countryside,  largely  heathen.  '  The  presence  of  these 
unclean  animals,  so  abhorrent  to  the  Jews,  indicates  what  we  know 
from  other  sources,  that  the  region  was  inhabited  by  a  mixed 
population,  in  which  Gentiles  predominated  '  (Gould). 

15.  sitting",  clothed  and  in  his  right  mind  :  so  complete  was 
the  transformation.  He  was  in  the  attitude  of  a  disciple,  seated 
at  Jesus'  feet  (Luke), 

N 


178  ST.  MARK  5.  17-20.     X^k 

17  concerning  the  swine.      And  they  began  to  beseech  him 

18  to  depart  from  their  borders.  And  as  he  was  entering 
into  the  boat,  he  that  had  been  possessed  with  ^  devils 

19  besought  him  that  he  might  be  with  him.  And  he 
suffered  him  not,  but  saith  unto  him,  Go  to  thy  house 
unto  thy  friends,  and  tell  them  how  great  things  the 
Lord  hath  done  for  thee,  and  how  he  had  mercy  on 

20  thee.  And  he  went  his  way,  and  began  to  publish  in 
Decapolis  how  great  things  Jesus  had  done  for  him  :  and 
all  men  did  marvel. 

*  Gr.  demons 


17.  they  began  to  beseech  him  to  depart.  The  first  im- 
pression produced  upon  the  people  by  the  sight  of  the  restored 
demoniac  was  that  of  reh'gious  awe  (verse  15).  When  the  whole 
story  was  told  them,  their  sense  of  awe  passed  into  anxiety  to  get 
the  Prophet,  whose  presence  had  cost  their  pockets  so  dear,  out 
of  their  neighbourhood.  In  no  other  case  did  a  miracle  wrought 
by  Jesus  have  an  effect  like  this,  one  adverse  to  his  reception. 

18.  that  he  migrht  be  with  him.  The  sense  of  indebtedness 
and  gratitude  would  naturally  make  him  anxious  to  cling  to  Jesus, 
perhaps  also  the  vague  fear  of  what  might  happen  if  he  were 
separated  from  the  author  of  his  deliverance. 

19.  suffered  him.  not.  Jesus  had  a  mission  for  him.  He  was 
to  return  to  the  home  which  he  had  exchanged  for  the  tombs,  and 
be  a  witness  there  for  the  God  of  Israel  as  his  healer. 

tell  them.  In  the  case  of  the  leper  (i.  44),  and  again  in  that 
of  the  witnesses  of  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter  (v.  43\  Jesus 
commanded  silence.  In  this  instance  he  enjoins  the  publication 
of  the  miracle.  The  reason  for  the  difference  lay  in  the  different  con- 
ditions. For  this  was  Peraea,  and  in  that  remoter  district,  where 
also  Jesus  would  be  less  known,  there  might  be  less  risk  from 
publicity  ;  while  the  man's  testimony  would  give  those  ready  to 
hear  to  purpose  a  chance  of  knowing  enough  to  lead  them  to  seek 
him  out,  if  they  so  desired.  He  was  to  be  a  sort  of  forerunner  for 
Jesus  himself  (cf.  vii.  31),  possibly  in  non-Jewish  circles  (cf.  7). 

the  Lord  :  the  O.  T.  name  for  God.  The  works  done  by 
Jesus  are  always  treated  by  him  as  done  by  God  through  him  (see 
Luke  xi.  20).     Cf.  Peter's  address.  Acts  ii.  22,  x.  38. 

20.  in  Decapolis.  Only  Mark  mentions  the  locality  by  name. 
The  term  occurs  three  times  in  the  N.  T.— here,  in  Mark  vii.  31, 
and   Matt.  iv.   25.     It  means   the    region   or  confederation  of  the 


ST.  MARK  5.  21,  2  2.     XMk  j^g 

And  when  Jesus  had  crossed  over  again  in  the  boat  21 
unto  the  other  side,  a  great  multitude  was  gathered  unto 
him  :  and  he  was  by  the  sea.     And  there  cometh  one  of  22 


'Ten  cities.'  The  district  cannot  be  exactly  defined.  Probably 
its  limits  varied  from  time  to  time,  as  the  names  of  the  cities  also 
varied.  Pliny  gives  them  as  follows : — Scythopolis,  Hippos, 
Gadara,  Pella,  Philadelphia,  Gerasa,  Dion,  Kanatha,  Damascus, 
Raphana.  With  the  exception  of  Scythopolis  (the  ancient  Beth- 
shan,  modern  Beisan),  they  seem  to  have  been  all  east  of  the 
Jordan  and  to  the  south-east  of  Galilee,  within  Gilead  and  Bashan. 
After  the  Roman  conquest  of  these  territories  in  65  b.  c,  the  cities 
were  rebuilt  and  had  certain  privileges  bestowed  on  them. 

(e)  Incidents  on  return  to  the  West  side  of  the  Lake. 

V.  21-24.  27?^  case  of  J  aims  and  his  daughter  (Matt.  ix.  18,  19, 
Luke  viii.  40-42). 

Three  instances  of  the  miraculous  power  of  Jesus  in  raising  the 
dead  to  life  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  But  of  the  three  only 
the  case  of  Jairus  is  reported  by  all  the  Synoptists,  while  the 
miracle  at  Nain  is  told  only  by  Luke,  and  that  at  Bethany  only  in 
John.  Mark's  narrative  here  is  the  most  vivid  and  circumstantial. 
He  enables  us  to  follow  the  event  in  all  its  details  from  beginning 
to  end.  There  are  also  certain  differences  in  the  connexion  of 
this  event,  notably  in  Matt.,  and  in  the  particulars. 

21.  the  other  side:  the  western  side  again,  and,  as  we  may 
judge,  the  neighbourhood  of  Capernaum. 

a  great  multitude  was  gathered.  The  time  of  this  is  not 
as  definitely  fixed  in  Mark  as  in  Luke's  words  '  they  were  all 
waiting  for  him,'  on  his  return.  The  incident  that  follows  is  intro- 
duced by  both  immediately  after  that  of  the  Gerasene  demoniac. 
But  it  is  doubtful  whether  Mark  means  that  it  happened  the  very 
day  of  Jesus'  return  to  the  western  side  of  the  lake.  Much  de- 
pends on  whether  we  take  the  clause  'and  he  was  by  the  sea' 
with  what  precedes  or  with  what  follows  (see  note  below). 
Matt,  attaches  the  story  to  the  interview  with  the  disciples  of  John 
who  questioned  Jesus  on  the  subject  of  fasting,  and  speaks  of 
Jairus  coming  to  Jesus,  not  by  the  sea,  but  in  the  house  :  '  While 
he  spake  these  things  unto  them,  behold  there  came  a  ruler.' 
Possibly  this  order  is  due  to  a  wish  to  have  an  example  of  raising 
of  the  dead  before  Jesus'  words  '  dead  are  raised,'  in  Matt.  xi.  5. 

and  he  was  by  the  sea.  The  punctuation  of  the  R.  V. 
attaches  this  closely  with  the  multitude's  coming  to  meet  him. 
But  that  idea  would  more  naturally  be  expressed  without  the 
words  '  and  he  was,'  which  are  accordingly  omitted  by  D,  most 


i8o  ST.  MARK  5.  23-26.     XMk 

the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  JaVrus  by  name ;  and  seeing 

33  him,  he  falleth  at  his  feet,  and  beseecheth  him  much, 

saying,   My  httle   daughter   is   at  the  point  of  death : 

/  pray  thee,  that  thou  come  and  lay  thy  hands  on  her, 

24  that  she  may  be  "■  made  whole,  and  live.  And  he  went 
with  him  ;  and  a  great  multitude  followed  him,  and  they 
thronged  him. 

25  And  a  woman,  which  had  an  issue  of  blood  twelve 

26  years,  and  had  suffered  many  things  of  many  physicians, 

*  Or,  saved 

Old  Latin,  and  the  Old  Syriac.  As  it  is,  the  clause  may  best  be 
taken,  in  keeping  with  the  analogy  of  similar  passages  in  ii.  2  f., 
18,  iv.  i,  vi.  7,  with  the  next  sentence,  beginning  with  an  historic 
present —'And  he  was  by  the  seaside.     And  there  cometh  one.  .  .  ,' 

22.  one  of  the  rulers  of  the  synag^ogue.  The  duties  of  such 
a  '  ruler,'  who  was  usually  one  of  the  elders  of  the  congregation, 
had  to  do  with  the  direction  of  public  worship  rather  than  with 
actually  conducting  it  (cf  Acts  xiii.  15^ 

Jairus.  A  name  corresponding  to  the  Jair  of  the  O.  T. 
(Judges  X,  3).  If  this  Jairus  belonged  to  Capernaum,  he  may  have 
been  one  of  those  sent  by  the  centurion  who  there  'built  a  syna- 
gogue,' to  plead  with  Jesus  on  behalf  of  his  sick  servant  (Luke  vii. 
3).  If  so,  he  might  have  such  previous  knowledge  of  Jesus  as 
would  explain  the  confidence  with  which  he  approached  him  now, 

23.  My  little  daughter  :  a  fond  diminutive,  used  only  by  Mark. 
Luke  (viii.  4a)  says  she  was  his  only  daughter. 

at  the  point  of  death  :  /;'/.  '  is  in  extremity.' 

lay  thy  hands  on  her.     The   laying  on  of  hands  in  cases 

of  healing  is  mentioned  again  in  vi.  5,  vii.  32,  viii.  23  [xvi.   18]. 

So,  too,  in  Acts  ix.  17,  xxviii.  8. 

V.  25-34.  Incident  of  the  ivoman  with  the  issue  of  blood  (Matt. 
ix.  20-22  ;  Luke  viii.  43-48).  Here  we  have  a  narrative  in  the 
heart  of  a  narrative.  There  is  the  further  peculiarity  that  the 
healing  work  is  done  without  the  conscious  co-operation  of  Jesus. 
Here  again  Mark's  narrative  surpasses  the  others  in  vivid  realism, 

25,  a  woman,  which  had  an  issiie  of  blood  twelve  years. 
The  length  of  time  points  perhaps  to  the  haemorrhage  being  of  a 
periodical  kind.  Maladies  of  this  kind  were  regarded  as  peculiarly 
afflictive  :  ceremonial  uncleanncss  attached  to  them  ;Lev,  xv.  19)  : 
compare  verse  27. 

26.  suffered  many  things  of  many  physicians.     How  useless 


ST.  MARK  5.  27-30.     XMk  181 

and  had  spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was  nothing  bettered, 
but  rather  grew  worse,  having  heard  the  things  concerning  27 
Jesus,  came  in  the  crowd  behind,  and  touched  his  gar- 
ment.    For  she  said,  If  I  touch  but  his  garments,  I  shall  28 
be  a  made  whole.     And  straightway  the  fountain  of  her  29 
blood  was  dried  up ;  and  she  felt  in  her  body  that  she 
was   healed   of   her  ^plague.      And  straightway  Jesus,  30 
perceiving  in  himself  that  the  y^o^N^x  proceeding  from  him 
had  gone  forth,  turned  him  about  in  the  crowd,  and 

^  Or,  saved  ^  Gr.  scourge 


and  costly  were  the  remedies  that  used  to  be  prescribed  for  such 
cases,  we  learn  from  the  Jewish  books  :  see  Geikie's  The  Life  and 
Words  of  Christ,  ii.  167,  168,  and  Lightfoot's  Horae  Heb.  et  Taint. 
on  the  passage. 

27.  came  in  the  crowd  behind.  She  wished  to  snatch  un- 
awares a  share  in  the  Prophet's  miraculous  power,  which  she 
conceived  as  operating  in  a  magical  or  physical  fashion  tsee  verse 
28). 

touched  his  garment.  Mark  and  Luke  state  that  it  was  '  the 
border'  of  his  garment.  She  touched,  that  is,  the  edge  or  corner 
of  the  robe,  or  one  of  the  fringes  or  tassels  fastened  to  it.  The 
Jew  was  required  by  the  Law  to  have  tassels  on  the  corners  of 
his  square  outer  robe  (cf  Matt,  xxiii.  5V  They  were  made  of 
twisted  threads  of  white  wool  attached  to  the  garment  by  a  cord 
of  blue  (Num.  xv.  38,  &c.). 

28.  she  said,  If  I  touch  but  his  gfarments.  The  Greek 
suggests  that  she  kept  saying  it  to  herself,  inaudibly  to  others. 
She  fancied  that  the  healing  power  attached  not  only  to  the  body 
of  Jesus  but  to  his  garment  (cf  vi.  56). 

29.  felt  in  her  body.  From  Matthew's  account,  which  may 
represent  another  form  of  this  tradition,  we  should  gather  that 
the  healing  came  only  with  Jesus'  word,  which  in  Mark  comes 
later  (verse  34). 

30.  perceiving  in  himself:  the  Healer  had  the  consciousness 
of  power  gone  forth  from  him.  It  was  only  by  this,  Mark's 
narrative  implies,  that  he  became  aware  of  the  touch,  and  'turned 
about'  to  find  out  its  meaning.  It  is  to  us  not  a  difficulty  that 
healing  should  have  resulted  from  the  woman's  touch  under  the 
conditions  described,  seeing  that  she  had  strong  expectant  faith  in 
a  cure  to  be  had  this  way  :  but  it  is  hard  to  think  that  Jesus' 
relation  to  it  was  as  Mark  supposed. 


i82  ST.  MARK  5.  31-34.     X™^ 

31  said,  Who  touched  my  garments?  And  his  disciples 
said  unto  him,  Thou  seest  the  multitude  thronging  thee, 

32  and  sayest  thou,  Who  touched  me  ?     And  he  looked 

33  round  about  to  see  her  that  had  done  this  thing.  But 
the  woman  fearing  and  trembling,  knowing  what  had 
been  done  to  her,  came  and  fell  down  before  him,  and 

34  told  him  all  the  truth.  And  he  said  unto  her.  Daughter, 
thy  faith  hath  »  made  thee  whole ;  go  in  peace,  and  be 
whole  of  thy  ^  plague. 

*  Or,  saved  thee  ^  Gr.  scourge 


Who  tonclied  my  garments  ?  Jesus'  purpose  was  probably 
to  bring  the  person  who  had  touched  him  with  a  view  to  physical 
benefit,  and  in  a  superstitious  spirit,  into  a  more  spiritual  relation 
to  himself  with  a  view  to  a  fuller  and  more  abiding  benefit. 

31.  sayest  thou,  Who  touched  me?  The  disciples  think  that 
only  some  accidental  touch  is  in  question,  not  one  that  was  a 
deliberate  act  (verse  32). 

32.  And  he  looked  round  about  to  see.  Mark's  word?  do  not 
make  it  clear  whether  Jesus  did  or  did  not  know  who  had  benefited 
by  the  power  that  had  gone  forth  from  him.  The  main  point  is 
that  his  searching  glance  caused  the  woman  to  reveal  herself. 

34,  Daughter :  a  tender,  reassuring  mode  of  address,  cf.  thai 
to  the  paralytic,  in  ii.  5,  '  Son.'  She  had  made  a  great  venture 
in  faith,  and  it  was  for  her  faith's  sake  that  Jesus  confirmed  thi 
healing  and  gave  her  the  word  of  peace. 

thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole :  see  x.  52,  where  the  same 
words  are  followed  by  the  cure  of  a  blind  man,  a  parallel  which 
so  far  supports  Matthew's  rather  than  Mark's  conception  of  the 
cause  of  this  woman's  healing  (cf.  verse  29). 

go  in  peace  :  rather  '  go  and  enjoy  (Jit. '  into ')  peace '  or  well 
being. 

In  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  the  woman  is  called 
Veronica.  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  i8"i  mentions  the  tradition 
that  she  was  a  native  of  Caesarea  Philippi  or  Paneas.  He  adds 
that  her  house  was  shewn  there,  and  that  he  had  seen  at  its  gates, 
on  an  elevated  stone,  a  brazen  image  of  the  woman  in  the  attitude 
of  a  suppliant  stretching  out  her  hands  to  another  figure,  supposed 
to  represent  the  Lord.  Eusebius  here  regards  her  as  being  a 
Gentile.  It  is  possible  that  she  had  actually  been  led  to  seek 
Jesus'  presence  from  a  distance,  by  hearing  of  his  fame :  see 
verse  27. 


ST.  MARK  5.  35-38.     XMk  183 

While  he  yet  spake,  they  come  from  the  ruler  of  the  35 
synagogue's  house^  saying,   Thy  daughter  is   dead :    why 
troublest  thou  the  ^  Master  any  further  ?      But  Jesus,  36 
^not  heeding  the  word  spoken,  saith  unto  the  ruler  of 
the  synagogue,  Fear  not,  only  believe.     And  he  suffered  37 
no  man  to  follow  with  him,  save  Peter,  and  James,  and 
John  the  brother  of  James.      And  they  come  to  the  38 
house  of  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue ;  and  he  beholdeth 

^  Or,  Teacher  ^  Or,  overhearing 

V.  35-43.  Continttatioii  of  the  story  of  Jdirus  and  his  daughter 
(Matt.  ix.  23-26 ;  Luke  viii.  49-56). 

why  troublest  thou  the  Master  (i.  e.  the  Teacher  or  Rabbi) 
any  further?  They  use  a  strongly  colloquial  word,  which  meant 
originally  to  flay,  and  in  later  Greek  to  harass  or  worry. 

36.  not  heeding  :  the  margin  of  the  R.  V.  gives  '  overhearing.' 
But  LXX  usage  (e.  g.  Isa.  Ixv.  12,  cf.  Matt,  xviii.  17)  fully  supports 
the  R.  V.  text.  Jesus  did  hear  what  was  said  by  the  messengers, 
but  he  took  no  notice  of  it. 

only  believe:  i.  e.  '  only  go  on  believing  '  (cf.  Luke  viii.  50). 

37.  suffered  no  man  to  follow.  Up  to  this  critical  point  he 
had  done  nothing  to  check  the  crowd.  Now  he  keeps  back  all, 
even  his  disciples,  with  the  exception  of  Peter  and  James  and 
John.  This  is  the  first  of  several  occasions  on  which  Jesus  selects 
for  special  privilege  this  circle  of  three  within  the  chosen  circle  of 
the  Twelve  :  cf.  ix.  2,  xiv.  33. 

38.  beholdeth  a  tumult,  and  many  weeping-  and  wailing 
greatly.  The  verb  (theorein)  suggests  an  attentive  gaze  :  '  con- 
templates'  would  best  give  the  meaning:  'wailing'  might  better 
be  rendered  '  howling.'  'He  stands  gazing  at  the  strange  spectacle  ' 
(Swete),  the  manner  and  spirit  of  which  must  have  jarred  on  his 
quiet  spirit.  Matthew  mentions  also  '  the  flute-plaj'ers,'  which 
seems  rather  premature,  so  soon  after  the  supposed  death.  The 
noisy  lamentations  indulged  in  at  Jewish  funerals,  the  professional 
mourners,  the  'mourning  women,'  the  doleful  music  of  the  minstrels, 
&c.,  are  often  referred  to  in  the  O.  T.  (Eccles.  xii.  5  ;  Jer.  ix.  17  ; 
Amos  V.  16  ;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25).  Of  the  unrestrained  Oriental 
ways  of  shewing  grief  Van  Lennep  says  :  '  As  soon  as  death  takes 
place,  the  female  members  of  the  household  and  the  professional 
mourning-women  announce  it  to  the  neighbourhood  by  setting  up 
their  shrill  and  piercing  cry — called  the  tahlil — which  is  heard  at 
n  great  distance  and  above  every  other  noise,  even  the  din  of 
battle,  and  is  quite  characteristic  of  the  East '  {Bible Lands,  p.  586). 


i84  ST.  MARK  5.  39-42.     XMk 

39  a  tumult,  and  many  weeping  and  wailing  greatly.  And 
when  he  was  entered  in,  he  saith  unto  them,  Why  make 
ye   a   tumult,   and   weep?    the   child  is  not  dead,   but 

4°  sleepeth.  And  they  laughed  him  to  scorn.  But  he, 
having  put  them  all  forth,  taketh  the  father  of  the  child 
and  her  mother  and  them  that  were  with  him,  and  goeth 

41  in  where  the  child  was.  And  taking  the  child  by  the 
hand,  he  saith  unto  her,  Talitha  cumi ;  which  is,  being 

42  interpreted,    Damsel,    I    say    unto    thee,    Arise.      And 


39.  not  dead,  but  sleepeth.  The  meaning  of  these  words  is 
determined  by  Jesus'  attitude  towards  the  excessive  mourning,  as 
is  shewn  by  the  question  which  precedes.  He  had  not  yet  seen 
the  child  :  so  by  these  words  he  probably  did  not  mean  to  deny 
that  she  might  really  be  dead.  On  the  other  and  more  usual  view 
his  language  is  figurative,  as  in  Ps.  xvii.  15,  '■  I  shall  be  satisfied, 
when  I  awake,  with  thy  likeness,'  Dan.  xii.  2,  '  many  that  sleep  in 
the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,'  cf.  i  Thess.  v.  10.  But  in  any 
case  he  wants  to  put  a  meaning  upon  her  death  more  worthy  of 
those  who  believe  in  a  God  who  is  not  baffled  by  bodily  death, 
than  that  suggested  by  such  unbridled  expressions  of  hopeless  grief. 
Jesus'  thought  on  the  matter  of  death  was  highly  characteristic  of 
his  whole  religious  outlook  ;  witness  his  words  to  the  Sadducees 
in  xii.  27,  '  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living  ;  ye  do 
greatly  err' — where  Luke  adds  'for  all  live  unto  him.' 

40.  put  them  all  forth  :  better  '  ejected  them  all.'  The  word  is 
the  same  as  is  used  of  the  expulsion  of  the  traffickers  in  the  Temple 
(xi.  15),  and  suggests  stern  authoritative  command.  Whatever  he 
had  in  mind  to  do  next,  Jesus'  spirit  shrank  from  having  the  noisy 
crowd  of  mourners  about  him  on  such  an  occasion.  It  was  appro- 
priate to  have  only  a  few  sympathetic  companions  as  witnesses  of 
his  action. 

41.  taking-  the  child  lay  the  hand :  the  one  thing  done  in  the 
way  of  perceptible  instrumentality  (cf.  i.  31,  ix.  27),  in  addition  to 
the  word  of  authority. 

Talitha  ciimi :  the  original  Aramaic  words  used  at  a  most 
dramatic  moment,  treasured  doubtless  in  the  heart  of  Peter,  one  of 
the  hearers,  and  carefully  preserved  by  Mark  his  '  interpreter.' 

Damsel :  a  word  found  repeatedly  in  the  Greek  version  of  the 
O.  T.,  but  in  the  N.  T.  used  only  here  and  in  the  case  of  the 
daughter  of  Herodias. 

Arise  :  i.e.,  *  raise  thyself '  the  same  verb  being  used  of  Jesus' 
own  action  in  i.  31,  ix.  27. 


ST.  MARK  5.  43.     XMk  185 

straightway  the  damsel  rose  up,  and  walked ;   for  she 
was  twelve  years  old.     And  they  were  amazed  straight- 
way with  a  great  amazement.     And  he   charged  them  43 
much  that  no  man  should  know  this  :  and  he  commanded 
that  sotfiething  should  be  given  her  to  eat. 

for  she  was  twelve  years  old :  an  explanation  of  her  walking. 
Though  a  child,  she  vi^as  old  enough  to  be  capable  of  that. 

43.  charged  them  mucli.  Though  the  rumour  of  a  marvellous 
deed  of  power  having  been  done  by  him  could  not  but  get  abroad, 
yet  Jesus  was  anxious  to  limit  its  spread  by  the  actual  witnesses 
furnishing  details  to  the  public,  at  least  until  he  had  left  the  city 
(cf.  vi.  I*).  This  is  the  same  policy  as  is  described  in  other  semi- 
private  cases,  e.  g.  i.  44,  in  order  not  to  kindle  popular  excitement 
and  mistaken  expectations,  so  hindering  instead  of  helping  his  real 
work. 

he  given  her  to  eat.  A  true  touch,  revealing  his  complete 
presence  of  mind  and  considerate  attention  to  the  wants  of  the 
child,  who  had  probably  been  unable  to  take  food  for  some  time 
and  might  faint. 

Dr.  Menzies  justly  remarks  that  '  This  story  as  Mark  tells  it  is 
ambiguous  :  it  is  impossible  to  determine  whether  the  case  is  one 
of  real  or  only  apparent  death.'  But  when  he  adds  that  'Jesus 
acts  throughout  as  if  the  child  were  not  dead,'  he  seems  to  go 
too  far. 

It  is  true  that  the  wording  of  Jesus'  protest  against  the  uproar 
of  the  manifestations  of  grief  seems  to  suggest  this,  since  it  runs 
literally  '  the  child  has  not  died  [lit.  '  did  not  die  '),  but  is  sleeping.' 
But  possibly  his  real  meaning  was  to  rebuke  the  sort  of  grief 
betokened  by  such  lamentations,  which  jarred  on  him  as  being  so 
devoid  of  any  suggestions  of  faith  in  God's  unexhausted  purpose 
for  his  own  as  to  be  misleading  in  its  eficct,  both  in  theory  (see 
xii.  27)  and  in  practice.  If  so,  he  simply  leaves  open  the  question 
as  to  the  child's  state  in  relation  to  the  physical  moment  of  death, 
and  goes  forward  to  see  how  he  can  yet  bring  the  power  of  faith 
in  God,  as  the  Lord  of  Life,  to  bear  upon  the  situation  he  may  find 
in  the  inner  chamber.  As  Menzies  observes  '  the  signs  of  the 
occurrence  of  death  were  not  so  well  known  in  N.  T.  times  as  they 
are  now'  to  medical  science;  'so  that  mistakes  were  more 
possible.'  Jesus,  then,  may  in  the  sequel  have  acted  upon  his  own 
judgement,  when  he  saw  the  child,  that  ph3'sical  life  had  not  yet 
left  the  body ;  and  his  earh'er  calm  words  may  have  been  taken  by 
his  disciples  as  pointing  to  a  purpose  all  along  to  raise  her  from 
the  sleep  of  death. 

In  a  word,  Jesus'  state  of  mind  may  not  have  been  one  and  the 


1 86  ST.  MARK  6.  i.    X^ 

6      [X^**^]  And  he  went  out  from  thence ;  and  he  cometh 

same  at  all  stages  of  the  story,  save  that  it  was  throughout  one  of 
hope  based  on  faith,  not  one  of  fear.  The  differences  in  Luke's 
version  of  the  story  are  here  significant.  To  Mark's  *  Have  no 
fear,  only  keep  believing  '  is  added  'and  she  shall  be  saved^  (from 
death)  :  to  '  they  laughed  him  to  scorn  '  is  added  '  knowing  that 
she  had  died '  :  and  between  the  command  '  Arise  '  and  the  result, 
'  she  rose  up,'  occur  the  words  '  and  her  spirit  returned,'  making 
clear  that  death  was  really  complete.  Such  an  interpretation  of 
Jesus'  words  and  behaviour  as  a  whole  is  the  opposite  of  what 
Dr.  Menzies  thinks  is  the  general  effect  of  Mark's  narrative,  viz. 
that  '  Jesus  acts  throughout  as  if  the  child  were  not  dead.'  The 
truth  seems  to  lie  midway  between  these  views.  Jesus  does  not  - 
shut  the  door  to  the  hope  that  life  is  still  in  the  child,  who  may 
only  have  swooned  :  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  evidence  either 
that  Jesus  was  sure  she  was  not  'dead,'  when  he  spoke  his  words 
of  reproof  to  the  excited  and  demonstrative  mourners  at  the  house, 
or  that  later  he  acted  in  the  sick-chamber  on  the  belief  that  life 
was  already  extinct.  The  parallelism  of  his  action  there,  as 
described  by  Mark,  with  that  in  the  cases  of  Simon's  mother-in- 
law  and  the  Demoniac  lad  (i.  31,  ix.  27),  is  very  close ;  and  in  its 
real  nature  the  case  may  have  been  akin  to  that  of  Eutychus  in 
Acts  XX.  9-12.  Probably  Mark  himself  thought  that  Jesus  spoke 
with  supernatural  knowledge  (and  in  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
words)  in  verse  39,  when  he  denied  that  the  child  had  actually 
died  ;  so  that  the  miracle  was  not  strictly  one  of  raising  the  dead, 
whatever  the  opinion  of  the  witnesses  may  have  been,  as  described 
in  verse  42.  The  general  impression  of  the  whole  incident  is  that 
Jesus  went  forward  in  full  faith  in  his  Father's  gracious  will,  to  do 
that  which  the  facts  of  the  case  demanded  — whether  to  heal  or  to 
bind  up  the  broken-hearted  with  words  of  faith  and  undying  hope 
in  God  as  Father. 

vi.  1-6*.  Visit  to  Nazareth  and  rejection  there  Tcf.  Matt.  xiii.  53- 
58.  See  also  Luke  iv.  16-30).  The  difficulty  here  is  as  to  the 
relations  in  which  the  three  narratives  stand  to  each  other. 
Matthew's  narrative  is  a  pretty  close  parallel  to  Mark's,  but  is  in 
another  context.  There  are,  however,  noticeable  differences  be- 
tween Luke's  account  and  the  others.  Luke  places  the  visit  at 
the  very  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry  :  some  therefore  take  Luke's 
narrative  to  refer  to  an  earlier  visit ;  but  as  Luke  iv.  23  refers  to 
prior  ministry  at  Capernaum,  this  is  unlikely.  If  so,  Luke's  account 
may  be  used  to  fill  out  that  in  Mark — with  its  Petrine  realism. 

1.  from  thence:  from  the  city  or  district  in  which  the  last 
incident  took  place.  Probably  his  wish  was  to  get  away  from  the 
enthusiasm  of  the  local  crowds. 


ST.  MARK  6.  2,  3.     XMk  187 

into  his  own  country ;  and  his  disciples  follow  him.  And  a 
when  the  sabbath  was  come,  he  began  to  teach  in  the 
synagogue:  and  ^many  hearing  him  were  astonished, 
saying,  Whence  hath  this  man  these  things  ?  and,  What 
is  the  wisdom  that  is  given  unto  this  man^  and  what 
mean  such  ^  mighty  works  wrought  by  his  hands  ?  Is  3 
not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary,  and  brother  of 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  insert  the  ^  Gr.  powers 

his  own  country :  Nazareth  and  its  region. 

his  disciples  follow  him  :  that  is,  he  came  as  a  Teacher  or 
Rabbi  who  already  had  a  definite  following  of  disciples.  This 
fact  should  have  helped  to  qualify  the  effect  of  the  principle  to 
which  Jesus  refers  as  a  difficulty,  that  it  is  hardest  for  fellow- 
townsmen  and  kinsmen  to  recognize  a  man  as  a  prophet. 

2.  began  to  teach  :  an  Hebraic  phrase,  which  does  not  imply 
that  hitherto  he  had  not  done  so  at  all  in  Nazareth :  cf.  i.  45 ; 
iv.  I ;    V.  20  ;    vi.  34  ;    viii.  31  f. 

many.  For 'many  '  BL  13  &c.  Copt,  e  have 'the  many,' which 
in  classical  Greek  means  '  the  mass  '  or  the  mob,  as  distinct  from  the 
discerning  minority,  the  elite.  But  here  no  such  distinction  seems 
present,  and  the  reading,  if  right,  means  simply  'the  populace.' 

mighty  works :  'powers,' i.e.  miraculous  powers.  The  re- 
port had  reached  them  of  his  miracles.  They  are  astonished  at 
the  change  in  him,  as  they  thought,  indicated  by  the  teaching 
which  they  had  listened  to,  and  by  the  works  of  which  they  had 
heard. 

3.  the  carpenter.  The  word  tekton  means  a  builder  or  work- 
man, in  wood  in  particular  :  'artisan  '  would  perhaps  best  suggest 
to  our  ears  the  half-contempt  involved.  This  is  the  only  place  in 
which  he  is  so  described  explicitly.  In  Matthew  he  is  '  the  car- 
penter's son.'  Every  Jew  had  to  learn  a  trade.  Jesus  would 
naturally  learn  the  one  followed  by  Joseph,  and  would  work  in 
his  shop  at  Nazareth.  The  Apocryphal  gospels  have  much  that  is 
extravagant  to  say  in  this  connexion.  Justin  Martyr  tells  us  that 
in  his  time  (the  middle  of  the  second  century)  rakes,  harrows,  and 
other  articles  were  preserved  which  were  said  to  have  been  made 
by  Jesus.  The  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  represents  him  as  setting 
Joseph  right  when  he  blundered  in  his  work.  Thus  does  legend 
grow,  so  as  to  depart  from  the  very  spirit  of  the  history  which 
starts  it. 

son  of  Mary.  There  is  no  reference  to  Joseph.  Hence  it 
has  been  inferred  that  Mary  was  now  widowed.  Luke's  narrative 
of  the  visit  (iv.  22)  has  '  Is  not  this  Joseph's  son  ?' 


1 88  ST.  MARK  6.  4,  5.     XMk 

James,  and  Joses,  and  Judas,  and  Simon?   and  are  not 
his  sisters  here  with  us  ?     And  they  were  *  offended  in 

4  him.     And  Jesus    said    unto    them,  A  prophet   is   not 
without  honour,  save  in   his  own  country,  and  among 

5  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house.     And  he  could  there 
do  no  ^mighty  work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hands  upon 

'  Gr.  caused  to  stumble  ~  Gr.  power 


brotlier  of  James.  As  to  the  brothers  of  Jesus  see  on  iii.  31. 
Their  names  are  given  here  and  in  Matt.'s  parallel. 

James :  later  the  head  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  as  appears 
from  Acts  xii.  17,  xv.  13,  xx.  18  ;  of.  Gal.  ii.  9,  12  ;  called  by  Paul 
'the  Lord's  brother'  (Gal.  i.  19). 

Joses  :  a  Graecized  form  of  'Joseph  '  (Matt   xiii.  55). 

Judas:  the  reputed  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude  (verse  i). 
Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  20),  quoting  from  Hegesippus,  a  writer 
of  the  second  century,  speaks  of  the  '  grandchildren  of  Judas, 
called  the  brother  of  the  Lord,'  as  living  in  the  time  of  the 
Emperor  Domitian  (a.  d  81-96)  and  held  in  high  honour  in  the 
Palestinian  churches 

Simon.  ThemartyrSymeon,  thehead  of  the  Jerusalem  Church 
after  the  death  of  James,  was  probably  a  son  of  Clopas,  Joseph's 
brother  (Eus.  iii.  u). 

his  sisters  here  with  us.  Their  names  are  never  given.  All 
that  we  know  of  them  is  that  they  lived  in  Nazareth,  as  the  present 
passage  indicates.  Probably  they  were  married,  and  so  were  dis- 
tinguished from  Mary  and  Jesus'  brothers  as  still  living  at  Nazareth 
— '  here  with  us' — whereas  the  rest  of  Jesus'  family  had  gone  with 
him  to  Capernaum  (iii.  21).  This  (with  the  parallel  in  Matt.  xiii. 
56)  is  the  only  mention  of  them  in  the  Gospels.  Nothing  is  said 
of  the  sisters  even  in  Acts  i.  14. 

offended  in  him.  First  'astonished,'  and  then  'scandalized.' 
The  difference  between  what  he  seemed  now  to  be,  and  what  they 
knew  him  to  have  been,  was  too  much  for  them. 

4.  A  prophet  is  not  without  honour.  Compare  John  iv.  44, 
and  what  is  said  of  Jeremiah  and  the  men  of  Anathoth  (Jer. 
xi.  21).  The  use  of  this  proverb  was  an  indirect  claim  to  the  rank 
of  a  prophet. 

and  amongr  his  own  kin.  Mark  alone  inserts  this  reference 
to  Jesus'  relations  generally,  in  addition  to  his  own  family  proper. 

5.  could  ...  do  no  mighty  work.  Matthew  says,  *  he  did  not 
);'rt«V  mighty  works,' probably  in  order  to  guard  against  misappre- 
hension as  to  Jesus'   power.     But   the   inability  was  of  a  moral 


ST.  MARK  6.  6-s.     X^k  189 

a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed  them.     And  he  marvelled  6 
because  of  their  unbelief. 

And  he  went  round  about  the  villages  teaching. 

And  he  called  unto  him  the  twelve,  and  began  to  send  7 
them  forth  by  two  and  two ;  and  he  gave  them  authority 
over  the  unclean  spirits ;  and  he  diarged  them  that  they  8 

nature,  not  an^' physical  lack  of  his  wonted  'povirers.'     The  moral 
conditions  were  wanting. 

a  few  sick  folk.  There  were,  therefore,  exceptions,  where 
the  inward  preparation  for  the  healing  gift  existed. 

6.  marvelled.  This  human  touch  also  is  omitted  in  Matthew. 
'The  surprises  of  life,'  says  Dr.  Swete,  '  especially  those  which 
belong  to  its  ethical  and  spiritual  side,  created  genuine  astonish- 
ment in  the  human  mind  of  Christ.'  The  faith  of  the  centurion 
(Matt.  viii.  lo),  and  the  prejudiced  unbelief  of  the  men  of  Nazareth, 
were  both  among  these  '  surprises  of  life '  to  him.  A  yet  more 
painful  experience  of  wonder  attributed  to  him  in  Mark  occurs  in 
the  garden  of  Gethsemane  (xiv.  33). 

(2)  Second  phase:  Jesus'  popularity  at  its  height,  but 
with  ominous  menace  of  conflict  with  the  authorities  in 
State  and  Church,     vi.  6''-vii.  23. 

(a)  A  second  and  wider  tour  in  Western  Galilee :  vi.  6''-2g. 

vi.  6''-i3.  Mission  of  the  Tivelve  (cf.  Matt.  ix.  35 — x.  i,  x.  5 — 
xi.  I  ;  Luke  ix.  1-6).  This  mission  is  given  at  much  greater 
length  by  Matthew  than  by  Mark  and  Luke.  After  leaving  Naza- 
reth Jesus  begins  a  general  teaching  tour  in  Western  Galilee 
among  the  villages  (cf.  i.  38  f.\  The  extent  of  this  tour  is  not 
distinctly  indicated  (3'et  see  Matt.  ix.  35  ff.),  but  its  widespread 
nature  is  probablj'  implied  in  the  fact  next  mentioned,  viz.  that  he 
now  drew  on  the  assistance  of  the  inner  circle  of  his  disciples. 
His  mission  was  beginning  to  reach  its  climax. 

6''.  lit.  'he  was  going  round  the  villages  in  a  circuit  (or  "on 
tour"\  teaching.'     Here  X^"^  is  parallel  to  Matt.  ix.  35  ff.  (X^") 

7.  began  to  send  them  forth.  The  Twelve  had  a  sort  of  official 
position,  and  were  from  the  first  destined  for  missionary  or  'apos- 
tolic' service.  He  had  been  preparing  them  for  that,  and  now  he 
sends  them  fortli  on  their  first  definite  mission. 

by  two  and  two.  Mark  alone  notices  this  arrangement.  Each 
would  thus  help  the  other,  and  their  testimony  ^\•ould  be  more 
telling  (cf.  Latham,  Pasfor Pastorunt,  p.  297). 

authority  over  the  unclean  spirits.  For  the  emphasis  on 
this  see  note  on  i.  39.    That  the  '  authority  '  in  question  was  con- 


I90  ST.  MARK  6.  8.     X^k 

should  take  nothing  for  their  journey,  save  a  staff  only ; 

nected  with  some  reference  to  Jesus'  own  name  in  the  formula 
with  which  they  conducted  their  exorcizing  work,  is  not  only 
likely  in  itself — seeing  that  Jesus  was  already  widely  trusted  in 
as  God's  chosen  medium  for  the  exercise  of  such  Divine  power — 
but  is  also  proved  by  Luke  x.  17  in  the  parallel  case  the  Seventy, 
or  later  and  wider  apostolate,  when  Jesus  was  moving  towards 
Jerusalem  for  the  final  crisis.  '  Lord,'  say  these  on  their  return, 
*  even  the  demons  are  subject  to  us  in  thy  name ' :  cf.  the  formula 
of  the  pseudo-exorcists  in  Acts  xix.  13,  '  I  adjure  you  by  Jesus 
whom  Paul  preacheth.'  Possibly  the  form  actually  used  by  them 
at  this  time  was  '  I  adjure  thee  by  God,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.'  Matthew  and  Luke  state  that  the  commission  of  the 
Twelve  embraced  also  healing,  cf.  verse  13. 

8-12.  The  charge  on  this  occasion  differs  much  in  scope  as 
between  Mark  (and  Luke),  on  the  one  hand,  and  Matthew  on  the 
other.  The  latter's  far  longer  series  of  injunctions  cannot  be  taken 
as  equally  true  to  this  historical  situation  with  Mark's  ;  for  it 
shews  signs  of  the  unconscious  influence  of  the  later  missionary 
Work  of  Apostles  in  Palestine  during  the  period  covered  by  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  '  The  first  sending  out  of  the  missionaries 
by  the  founder  is,'  as  Menzies  truly  observes,  *in  every  religion 
where  it  takes  place,  a  matter  of  the  deepest  interest  to  later 
believers,  who  behold  in  the  act  the  first  appearance,  if  only  in 
germ,  of  the  institutions  and  modes  of  action  to  which  they  are 
accustomed.  The  narrative  of  the  first  sending,  moreover,  is  apt 
to  reflect  differences  of  practice  which  afterwards  came  in  (see 
Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  vols,  xiii,  xvii,  and  xxj.  It  is  so  in  the 
present  instance.'  But  we  have  every  reason,  both  intrinsic  and 
derived  from  the  analogy  of  the  Gospels  elsewhere,  to  regard 
Mark's  briefer  account  as  more  faithful,  to  the  spirit  at  least  of  the 
original  instructions  on  this  occasion,  than  the  fuller  and  more 
elaborate  account  in  Matthew  (see  notes  below).  The  very  fact 
that  Mark  does  not  mention,  but  simply  takes  for  granted,  owing 
to  the  context  in  which  the  sending  occurs  (cf.  12),  that  the 
Twelve  were  sent  out  to  preach  and  teach,  only  bears  out  this  view. 

8.  nothingf  .  .  .  save  a  staff  only.  They  were  to  be  content 
with  the  simplest  equipment.  These  men  were  to  go  forth 
promptly  and  as  they  were,  travelling  '  light '  that  they  might 
travel  fast,  and  give  the  impression  of  urgency  for  their  message. 
Hence  they  were  to  take  neither  bread,  nor  wallet,  nor  money, 
nor  anything  beyond  the  staff  which  every  traveller  carried. 
Matthew  says  'nor  staff.'  and  Luke  'neither  staff  nor  wallet.' 
Mark's  '  save  a  staff  only  '  is  much  the  same  as  '  at  most  a  staff' — 
the  symbol  of  a  traveller.  The  '  wallet '  or  '  scrip '  (A.  V.)  was  a 
leathern  bag,  swung  over  the  shoulder  and  containing  food,  &c. 


ST.  MARK  6.  9-1 1.     XMk  191 

no  bread,  no  wallet,  no  "  money  in  their  ^  purse  ;  but  to  9 
go  shod  with  sandals  :  and,  said  he,  put  not  on  two  coats. 
And  he  said  unto  them,  Wheresoever  ye  enter  into  a  jo 
house,  there  abide  till  ye  depart  thence.    And  whatsoever  i  \ 
place  shall  not  receive  you,  and  they  hear  you  not,  as  ye 
go  forth  thence,  shake  oif  the  dust  that  is  under  your 

*  Gr.  brass  ^  Gr.  girdle 

for  the  journey.     The  '  purse  '  was  the  loose  Oriental  girdle,  in 
the  folds  of  which  the  money  (here  lit.  '  brass ')  was  placed. 

9.  shod  with  sandals :  the  simplest  covering  for  the  feet,  and 
typical  of  the  traveller  (cf.  Exod.  xii.  ri).  Shoes  also  were  worn 
by  Jews,  furnished  with  upper  leather  and  more  costl}-.  Both 
Matthew  and  Luke  say  '  No  footgear,'  just  as  they  had  said  above 
'  No  stick ' :  their  sources  of  knowledge  enhanced  the  ascetic  rules 
for  the  typical  missionary  of  the  Gospel.  This  was  probably  the 
tendency  during  the  Apostolic  Age.  Both  in  the  zeal  with  which 
later  disciples  tend  to  work  out  into  greater  seeming  consistencj' 
or  literalism  the  principles  to  which  the  Master  had  himself  given 
a  suggestive  embodiment—  one  tempered  by  the  requirements  of 
practical  efficiencj'  and  some  latitude  of  freedom  — and  in  the 
conception  of  Evangelic  poverty  as  the  consort  or  '  bride '  of  the 
devoted  Evangelist,  the  story  of  Francis  of  Assisi  and  of  the 
'  Rule  '  of  his  '  lowly  brethren  '  {Fratrcs  ntinores)  affords  the  best 
illustration  of  the  whole  matter  here  in  hand. 

two  coats.  As  Mark  puts  it,  it  is  the  wearing  of  two  coats 
on  this  journey  that  is  forbidden  ;  as  Matthew  and  Luke  express 
it,  it  is  the  possession  of  two  coats  that  is  in  view.  Apostles  were 
to  encumber  themselves  with  nothing  unsuitable  for  plain  men 
going  about  among  ordinary  folk.  The  'coat'  or  '  tunic  '  was  the 
garment  worn  under  the  cloak.  In  the  case  of  the  poor  it  might 
be  the  only  garment. 

10.  there  abide  till  ye  depart  thence.  They  were  not  to 
change  from  one  house  to  another,  not  to  seek  to  improve  their 
quarters,  but  to  continue  with  the  family  that  first  received  them 
as  long  as  they  remained  in  the  place.  The  missionar3''s  dangers 
of  being  beguiled  into  self-seeking,  and  so  trading  upon  the  cause, 
are  vividly  illustrated  by  certain  provisions  in  the  traditional 
Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  meant  for  Christian  '  Apostles  '  and  '  Pro- 
phets '  working,  a  generation  or  so  later,  among  very  much  such 
villages  and  country  towns  in  Syria  as  those  here  in  question. 

11.  skake  off  the  dust:  a  symbolic  act  of  renunciation  and 
clearing  oneself  of  responsibility  (cf  Matt.  x.  15  ;  Luke  x.  10-16; 
also  Acts  xiii.  51  .     It  was  a  '  testimony'  to  the  inhospitable  as  to 


192  ST.  MARK  6.  12-14.     XMk 

12  feet  for  a  testimony  unto  them.     And  they  went  out, 

13  and  preached  that  men  should  repent.  And  they  cast 
out  many  ^  devils,  and  anointed  with  oil  many  that  were 
sick,  and  healed  them. 

14  And   king   Herod  heard  thereof;    for  his  name  had 

the  position  they  were  thus  assuming,  as   unfit  for  the  Kingdom 
of  God. 

12.  should  repent.  The  burden  of  their  preaching,  therefore, 
was  the  same  as  thai  of  the  Baptist,  namelj',  preparedness  of  heart 
for  the  Messianic  Kingdom  \.  4),  though  no  doubt  with  a  gladder 
accent  than  his,  due  to  the  spirit  of  their  Master's  own  preaching 
of  its  nature  hy  word  and  deed  :  cf.  i.  15. 

13.  anointed  with  oil.  This  was  a  specific  with  Jewish  phy- 
sicians. Only  once  again  in  the  N.T.  is  it  referred  to  in  connexion 
with  healing,  viz.  in  Jas.  v.  14.  Though  the  Twelve  used  unction, 
it  is  not  said  that  Jesus  himself  employed  it  in  any  of  his  works. 
He  was  more  sovereign  in  his  use  and  choice  of  means,  even  when 
dealing  with  the  same  class  of  cases  (verse  5),  ordinary  ailments, 
as  the  word  in  both  places  used  for  the  '  sick '  suggests  {lit.  '  lacking 
strength,'  'ailing')  :  cf.  xvi.  18. 

Episode  of  Herod  and  his  view  of  Jestis.  vi.  14-29. 
vi.  14-16.  Herod's  opinion  of  Jesus  (cf.  Matt.  xiv.  r,  2  ;  Luke 
ix.  7-9).  A  section  parallel  in  time  with  the  mission  of  the 
Twelve  and  so  inserted  here  :  cf.  vii.  24.  The  report  of  Jesus  and 
his  deeds  of  power  reaches  the  Tetrarch.  He  concludes  that 
Jesus  must  be  John  risen  from  the  dead. 

14.  king:  here  a  title  of  courtesy  only,  the  proper  designation 
being  tetrarch,  as  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  A  '  tetrarch,'  strictly 
speaking,  was  the  governor  of  the  fourth  part  of  a  country  or 
province.  Under  the  Empire  it  was  a  title  of  tributary  princes  of 
less  than  regal  rank.  In  the  N.  T.  it  is  given  to  three  rulers,  the 
Herod  of  this  passage,  Herod  Philip  '  tetrarch  of  the  region  of 
Ituraea  and  Trachonitis  '  (Luke  iii.  1),  and  Lj'sanias  'tetrarch  of 
Abilene'  (Luke  iii.  iV 

Herod:  that  is,  Herod  Antipas,  son  of  Herod  the  Great  and 
Malthace,  a  Samaritan  ;  tetrarch  of  Galilee  and  Peraea  by  his 
father's  will  ;  married  first  to  a  daughter  of  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia 
Petraea,  and  then  to  Herodias.  He  is  the  Herod  to  whom  later 
Jesus  was  sent  by  Pilate  i  Luke  xxiii.  6,  &c.).  In  the  Gospels  he 
appears  as  a  sensual,  cruel,  weak,  unscrupulous,  superstitious, 
cunning,  despotic  prince  (Matt.  xiv.  9  ;  Luke  iii.  19,  xiii.  31,  33, 
&c.;.  He  founded  the  city  of  Tiberias  in  honour  of  the  emperor. 
Losing  the  favour  of  Caligula,  he  was  condemned  in  A.  D.  39  to 
perpetual  banishment  at  Lyons  and  died  in  exile. 


ST.  MARK  6.  15,  16.     XMk  193 

become  known  :    and  *  he  said,   John  ^  the   Baptist  is 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  therefore  do  these  powers  work 
in  him.     But  others  said,  It  is  Ehjah.     And  others  said,  15 
It  is  a  prophet,  even  as  one  of  the  prophets.    But  Herod,  \  6 
when  he  heard  thereof,  said,  John,  whom  I  beheaded  he 

»  they  ;  BD,  Old  Lat.  ^  Gr.  the  Baptizer 


heard  thereof:  that  is  of  Jesus  and  his  work,  including  the 
mission  carried  on  in  Jesus'  name  by  the  Twelve. 

and  he  said,  John  the  Baptist  is  risen  from  the  dead  : 
rather  the  '  Baptizer'  (cf.  i.  4).  The  margin  of  the  R,  V.  notices 
the  ancient  reading  'they  (men)  said,'  by  which  Mark  quotes  the 
popular  belief  that  John  had  reappeared  in  Jesus.  This  is  pre- 
ferable (cf.  16),  as  following  up  the  statement  that  Jesus'  name 
was  now  on  many  lips,  with  the  view  which  the  majority,  as  it 
seems,  took  of  the  meaning  of  his  appearance  and  his  powers. 

therefore  do  these  powers  work  in  him  :  rather  '  the  powers 
(in  question)  are  active  in  him;'  where  'powers'  =  miracles. 
John  had  done  no  miracle  during  his  lifetime  (cf.  John  x.  41). 
But  if  he  had  indeed  risen  from  the  dead,  it  would  not  be  strange 
that  new  powers,  supernatural  powers,  should  be  active  in  him. 

15.  others  said,  3Ct  is  Elijah.  Various  opinions  were  current 
of  Jesus.  Some  thought  he  must  be  the  promised  Eh'jah  of  Mai.  iv; 
while  still  others  held  him  to  be,  not  indeed  that  great  figure 
among  the  prophets,  but  at  least  '  a  prophet,  like  one  of  the 
Prophets,'  one  of  the  recognized  order  of  prophets  (cf.  Matt.  vi.  14). 

16.  John,  whom  I  beheaded,  he  is  risen.  It  was  the  first  of 
these  views  that  Herod  himself  accepted.  He  speaks  under  the 
stress  of  an  evil  conscience  — '  he  whom  /  (the  emphasis  is  on  /) 
beheaded,  John,  he  is  risen.'  Whether  Herod  was  a  Sadducee  or 
not,  he  was  an  utter  worldling.  But  his  guilty  conscience  drove 
him,  for  the  moment  at  any  rate,  into  belief  that  of  the  different 
explanations  given  of  Jesus  the  right  one  was  that  which  identified 
him  with  John. 

vi.  17-29.  Parenthetical  account  of  the  Baptist's  death  (cf.  Matt, 
xiv.  3-12  ;  also  Luke  iii.  19,  20').  An  episode  introduced,  after 
Mark's  manner  'cf  iv.  20-25),  in  explanation  of  Herod's  view  of 
Jesus.  Mark's  account  is  the  fullest,  and  was  probably  the  main 
source  of  the  other  two.  Indeed  its  fulness  seems  to  demand 
a  special  explanation  in  a  Gospel  story  of  such  limited  compass  ; 
and  this  may  be  j^ought  in  its  interest  to  his  readers  (cf.  note  on 
iv.  26-29),  ns  themselves  liable  to  martj'rdom  for  fidelity  to  God's 
truth,  as  well  as  in  its  analogy  to  Jesus'  own  lot    cf.  ix.  13). 

O 


194  ST.  MARK  6.  17-20.     X^t 

17  is  risen.  For  Herod  himself  had  sent  forth  and  laid 
hold  upon  John,  and  bound  him  in  prison  for  the  sake 
of  Herodias,  his  brother  Philip's  wife  :  for  he  had  married 

18  her      For  John   said  unto  Herod,  It  is  not  lawful  for 
:9  thee   to   have  thy  brother's  wife.      And   Herodias   set 

herself  against  him,  and  desired  to  kill  him;   and  she 
20  could  not ;  for  Herod  feared  John,  knowing  that  he  was 

17.  For  Herod  himself.  Mark  represents  the  seizure  of  the 
Baptist  as  emphatically  Herod's  own  act.  Where  he  arrested 
him  and  just  when,  is  not  stated.  Herod's  Galilean  capital  was 
Tiberias,  which  Jesus  seems  to  have  avoided.  _ 

in  prison.  According  to  Josephus  {Anhq.  xvui.  5,  2)  the 
prison  was  the  fortress  of  Machaerus  in  Peraea  the  modern 
Mkaur  known  as  the  '  black-tower,'  some  miles  to  the  east  of  the 
Se'rn  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  had  been  fortified  anew  by 
Herod  the  Great.  It  was  in  the  possession  of  the  King  of  Aiabia 
(according  to  Josephus,  Anhq.  xviii.  5.  i)  during  part  at  least  of 
he  reign  of  Herod  Antipas.  Canon  Tristram  found  two  dungeons 
among  the  ruins  at  Mkaur,  still  shewing  in  their  n?asonry  the  holes 
?n  which  staples  of  wood  or  iron  once  had  been  fastened  {Landof 

"""^ietLf^baughter  of  Aristobulus,  son  of  Herod  the  Great. 
She  was  sister  of  Agrippa  I,  the  Herod  who  '  ^Uled  James  w.h^he 
sword '  and  imprisoned  Peter  Acts  xii.  1-3).  Her  mother  was 
B^nrce  or  Berenice,  daughter  of  Salome,  Herod's  sister.  Herodias 
was  married  first  to'her  uncle  Herod  Phihp  %  the  et  -  / 
Luke  iii.  I,  cf.  Mark  viii.  27),  one  of  the  sons  of  Herod  the  Great, 
but  left  him  for  his  half-brother  Antipas  [Josephns  Anhq.  xviu 
54).     Herodias   was   a   sort  of  Jezebel  in   her  character   and 

'""Ts\rotlier  PMlip's  wife.  This  Philip  must,  if  Mark's  text 
is  here  correct,  be  distinguished  from  PhiHp  the  tetrarch.  He 
may  have  been'a  son  of  Herod  the  Great  and  Manamne  da^ught  r 
of  Simon,  who  spent  a  private,  undistinguished  life  In  that  case 
only  The  fact  tha?  he  was  the  first  spouse  of  Herodias  has  kept  his 

"Tl.'not"  lawfol.     The  husband   of   Herodias   was   still  alive 
Antipas's  wile,  the  daughter  of  Arctas,  also  was  alive   and  fled    o 
her  father  oni;  when  she  heard  of  the  determination  of  Antipas  to 

'To"f"atd%olxn.     The   Baptist's  character    made    itself  felt 
The  voluptuary  whom  he  had  boldly  rebuked  'stood  in  awe  of 
him  •  (Moffatt),  and  perhaps  dreaded,  too,  what  might  happen   if 


ST.  MARK  6.  21,  22.     XMk  195 

a  righteous  man  and  a  holy,  and  kept  him  safe.  And 
when  he  heard  him,  he  *  was  much  perplexed ;  and  he 
heard  him  gladly.  And  when  a  convenient  day  was  21 
come,  that  Herod  on  his  birthday  made  a  supper  to  his 
lords,  and  the  '^'high  captains,  and  the  chief  men  of 
Galilee ;   and  when  « the  daughter  of  Herodias  herself  22 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  read  did  many  things. 
^  Or,  military  tribunes,  Gr.  chiliarchs 
'^  N  BDL  read  his  daughter  Herodias 

he  made  away  with  one  so  revered  by  the  people  as  a  prophet  Cas 
Matthew  says)  :  compare  Josephus'  account  of  the  occasion  for  his 
imprisonment,  viz.  fear  lest  John's  influence  with  the  people  might 
cause  a  Messianic  rising. 

kept  him  safe:  Herod  protected  John  against  the  malign 
designs  of  Herodias.  He  even  continued  to  hear  him  from 
time  to  time.  It  is  not  said  where  this  took  place.  It  may  have 
been  in  the  fortress-palace  occupied  by  Antipas  near  the  prison  at 
Machaerus  ;  or  it  may  have  been  rather  in  his  capital  (see  v.  27). 
These  things  are  recorded  to  shew  the  impression  John  had  pro- 
duced on  even  such  a  man.  Josephus,  like  Matthew,  ascribes  to 
Herod  the  desire  to  kill  John  {Antiq.  xviii.  5,  2). 

2nuch  perplexed :  a  better  reading  than  the  '  did  many  things ' 
of  the  A.  V.  As  a  result  of  his  having  heard  John  '  he  was  greatly 
exercised  '  in  mind,  feeling  in  a  strait  between  his  sense  of  the 
righteousness  of  John  and  the  monitions  of  his  conscience,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  insistence  of  Herodias  on  the  other. 

21.  lords,  'magnates,'  the  most  important  civil  officers  ;  hig'li 
captains,  '  military  tribunes '  {Chiliarchs)  or  colonels  ;  the  chief 
men  of  Galilee,  the  provincials  of  highest  rank. 

22.  the  daughter  of  Herodias  herself.  Her  name  was 
Salome.  To  gain  her  fell  purpose  Herodias,  '  the  daughter  of 
a  king  and  wife  of  a  tetrarch  '  (as  Swete  well  puts  it),  stooped  to 
send  her  own  child  (by  her  former  marriage)  to  take  part  in  the 
voluptuous  and  degrading  dances  characteristic  of  such  feasts. 
This  would  explain  the  emphatic  form  of  the  description  '  the 
daughter  of  Herodias  herself.'  The  margin  of  the  R.  V.  follows  an 
old  reading  which  makes  the  girl  a  daughter  of  Antipas  himself, 
bearing  her  mother's  name.  But  this  is  probably  a  mistaken 
reading,  due  to  the  shade  of  meaning  being  missed  (as  also  by  the 
MSS.  which  have  simply  'the  daughter  of  Herodias'),  once  the 
fact  that  Salome  was  the  fruit  of  Herodias'  first  marriage  was 
forgotten,  and  it  seemed  natural  tp  describe  her  in  terms  of  her 
supposed  father  Antipas, 


196  ST.  MARK  6.  23-28.     XMk 

came  in  and  danced,  ^  she  pleased  Herod  and  them  that 
sat  at  meat  with  him  ;  and  the  king  said  unto  the  damsel, 
Ask  of  me  whatsoever  thou  wilt,  and  1  will  give  it  thee. 

23  And  he  sware  unto  her.  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  ask  of 
me,  I  will  give  it  thee,  unto  the  half  of  my  kingdom. 

24  And  she  went  out,  and  said  unto  her  mother.  What 
shall   I   ask?     And  she  said,  The  head  of  John  '^the 

25  Baptist.  And  she  came  in  straightway  with  haste  unto 
the  king,  and  asked,  saying,  I  will  that  thou  forthwith 
give   me  in  a  charger  the  head  of  John  '^the  Baptist. 

26  And  the  king  was  exceeding  sorry ;  but  for  the  sake  of 
his  oaths,  and  of  them  that  sat  at  meat,  he  would  not 

27  reject  her.  And  straightway  the  king  sent  forth  a  soldier 
of  his  guard,  and  commanded  to  bring  his  head  :  and 

28  he  went  and  beheaded  him  in  the  prison,  and  brought 
his  head  in  a  charger,  and  gave  it  to  the  damsel ;  and 

*  Or,  it  "  Gr.  the  Baptizer 


23.  the  half  of  my  kingrdom.  So  Ahasuerus  to  Esther 
(Esther  v.  3  ;  vii.  2). 

25.  came  in  straightway.  Thinking  no  doubt  of  her  own 
advantage,  the  girl  went  out  to  consult  her  mother.  Herodias  was 
waiting  her  chance,  and  kept  her  not  a  moment.  Her  answer  was 
sharp  and  short — her  enemy's  head.  Before  Antipas  could  think 
twice  of  his  rash  promise  the  damsel  was  back  with  her  demand. 

a  charger.  A  plate  or  flat  dish,  large  enough  to  hold  a  joint 
of  meat  an  assietfe.  Homer  uses  it  of  the  wooden  trencher  on 
whicli  meat  was  placed. 

26.  his  oaths.  He  had  repeated  his  promise,  once  and  again, 
in  the  loud  and  swaggering  terms,  we  may  imagine,  of  the  reveller. 
Too  late  he  saw  how  rashly  he  had  bound  himself. 

reject  her :  rather  '  disallow  her  request '  or  '  break  faith  with 
her.' 

27.  a  soldier  of  his  guard.  The  original  term  is  a  Latin  one, 
designating  a  '  scout.'  In  the  times  of  the  Empire  it  became  the 
name  of  a  member  of  the  Emperor's  body-guard.  One  of  the 
duties  of  these  guards  was  to  carry  out  special  missioiVs.  But  what 
follows  in  V.  28  suggests  that  John  was  not  at  any  distance  from 
the  palace  in  question. 


ST.  MARK  6.  29-31.     XMk  p  jgy 

the   damsel   gave   it   to    her   mother.      And   when   his  29 
disciples    heard   thereof,    they   came    and   took   up   his 
corpse,  and  laid  it  in  a  tomb. 

And   the  apostles   gather   themselves   together   unto  30 
Jesus  ;   and  they  told  him  all  things,  whatsoever  they 
had  done,  and  whatsoever  they  had  taught.     [P]  And  31 
he  saith  unto  them,  Come  ye  yourselves  apart  into  a 
desert  place,  and  rest  a  while.     For  there  were  many 

29.  his  disciples.  Matthew  adds  that  John's  disciples,  after 
they  had  paid  their  last  sad  tribute  of  honour  to  him,  'went  and 
told  Jesus  '  (xiv.  12V  Some  had  joined  Jesus  before.  Others, 
who  had  kept  by  John,  would  have  the  more  reason  now  to 
attach  themselves  to  Jesus.  Yet  others  held  aloof  still,  and  so 
remained  during  the  Apostolic  age  :  see  Acts  xix.  3. 

{b)  Retttrn  of  the  Twelve  atid  related  events :  vi.  30-52. 
^j-  30-33-  Return  of  the  Tivelve  and  retireniejit  for  rest  (cf.  Matt, 
xiv.  13  ;  Luke  ix.  10  ;  John  vi.  1-3).  This  brief  paragraph  is  one 
of  varied  interest.  It  introduces  the  narrative  of  the  Five  thousand, 
where  all  four  Gospels  coincide  for  a  time.  It  illustrates  Jesus' 
thoughtful  care  for  the  Twelve. 

30.  the  apostles  gfather  themselves  togfether  unto  Jesus. 
The  place  to  which  the  Twelve  returned  is  not  stated.  Probably' 
it  was  Capernaum  or  its  neighbourhood  (cf.  31  f.).  The  Twelve 
are  here  styled  'Apostles'  or  'Missionaries' — the  only  occasion 
in  Mark  (cf  iii.  14).  It  has  a  special  appropriateness  in  the  report 
of  their  return  from  their  first  official  mission. 

told  him  all  thing-s.  They  gave  a  report  both  of  their  doings 
and  their  teaching.  Nothing  is  said  either  of  their  success  or  of 
their  Master's  estimate  of  their  labours:  contrast  Luke  x.  178"., 
the  return  of  the  Seventy. 

31.  Come  ye  yourselves  apart.  Mark  (after  Peter)  alone 
records  Jesus'  concern  that  they  should  have  the  privacy  and  rest 
which  they  needed,  after  the  novel  experiences  and  the  exertions 
of  their  mission.  Matt.  xiv.  13  connects  this  retirement  with  the 
news  of  John's  death  at  Herod's  hands. 

into  a  desert  place.  Mark  does  not  identify  the  place.  From 
Luke,  who  follows  a  tradition  which  had  no  reference  to  the  use  of 
a  boat,  we  gather  it  was  on  the  way  '  to  a  city  called  Bethsaida  ' 
(ix.  10,  cf.  Mark  v.  45),  in  the  direction  of  a.  city  so  named.  There 
were  quiet,  unfrequented  spots  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  lake, 
especially  on  the  eastern  side  (cf  iv.  35),  and  at  the  northern  end 
even  west  of  the  Jordan's  mouth. 


198  ST.  MARK  6.  32-34.     P  XMk 

coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so  much  as 

32  to  eat.     [X'*^'^]  And  they  went  away  in  the  boat  to  a 

33  desert  place  apart.  And  the  people  saw  them  going,  and 
many  *  knew  theyn,  and  they  ran  there  together  ^  on  foot 

34  from  all  the  cities,  and  outwent  them.  And  he  came 
forth  and  saw  a  great  multitude,  and  he  had  compassion 
on  them,  because  they  were  as  sheep  not  having  a 
shepherd :    and  he  began  to  teach  them  many  things. 

*  BD  read  understood,  i.  e.  their  intention.  ''   Or,  by  land 


many  comings  and  g'oing'.  Rest  was  not  to  be  had  if  they 
remained  at  the  head-quarters  of  Jesus'  ministry  for  the  time. 
Streams  of  visitors,  drawn  thither  by  the  fame  of  his  works,  kept 
them  ever  in  movement,  and  broke  in  even  on  their  meals.  These 
details  are  given  only  by  Mark. 

32.  in  the  boat:  this  indicates  that  they  were  not  far  from 
the  lake. 

to  a  desert  place  apart.  For  its  locality,  i.  e.  as  west  rather 
than  east  of  the  point  where  the  Jordan  enters  the  Lake  on  the 
north,  see  note  on  the  next  verse. 

33.  and  many  knew  them:  better  'understood'  (their  inten- 
tion). Jesus  and  his  party  were  recognized,  the  course  of  the 
boat  was  noted,  and  the  eager  people  made  their  way  by  the  shore 
to  the  expected  place  of  landing. 

outwent  them.  They  were  there  before  those  in  the  boat 
themselves.  Mark  alone  mentions  this.  It  was  possible  enough, 
but  it  favours  a  nearer  rather  than  a  more  distant  spot,  and  so 
the  west  rather  than  the  east  of  Jordan.  The  latter  would  be 
some  five  or  six  miles  distant.     See  further  on  ver.  45. 

vi.  35-44-  The  Miracle  of  the  Feeding  of  the  Five  Tlwusaiid  (cf. 
Matt.  xiv.  14-21;  Luke  ix.  12-17;  John  vi.  4-13).  This  is  the 
only  miracle  recorded  by  all  four  Gospels.  It  no  doubt  stood  in 
the  common  Apostolic  tradition  :  see  note  on  viii.  i  ff. 

34.  Jesus'  expectation  of  quiet  was  defeated  ;  but  instead  of 
giving  way  to  the  sense  of  disappointment,  he  thought  only  of  the 
needs  of  the  people.  Luke  tells  us  that  he  even  '  welcomed 
them  '  lix.  ii). 

as  sheep  not  having'  a  shepherd.  The  same  phrase  occurs 
elsewhere  in  Matt.  ix.  36  (cf  Num.  xxvii.  17  ;  i  Kings  xxii.  17 ; 
2  Chron.  xviii.  i6\  His  compassion  was  stirred  by  the  spectacle 
of  the  eager  interest  of  those  crowds,  left  so  unsatisfied  in  soul  by 
the  recognized  teachers  of  the  law.      '  The  hungry  sheep  look  up 


ST.  MARK  6.  35-37.     XMk  199 

And  when  the  day  was  now  far  spent,  his  disciples  came  35 
unto  him,  and  said,  The  place  is  desert,  and  the  day  is 
now  far  spent :  send  them  away,  that  they  may  go  into  36 
the  country  and  villages  round  aboutj  and  buy  themselves 
somewhat  to  eat.     But  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  37 
Give  ye  them  to  eat.     And  they  say  unto  him.  Shall  we 


and  are  not  fed  '  was  true  then,  as  it  has,  alas,  often  been  since 
also. 

35.  when  the  day  was  now  far  spent.  Another  interesting 
note  of  time,  indicating  that  what  follows  took  place  shortly  before 
sunset,  which  at  that  season  would  be  about  six  o'clock. 

36.  the  country:  rather  'the  fields'  or  'farms.'  'While  the 
Master  is  eager  about  the  Word,  and  forgets  bodily  needs  (cf.  31), 
the  disciples  are  practical  men,  and  fee)  that  the  question  of  pro- 
visions is  becoming  more  and  more  urgent '  (Menzies). 

37.  Give  ye  them  to  eat.  Once  the  problem  of  the  people's 
bodily  needs  had  been  raised,  Jesus  has  another  solution  ot  his 
own,  one  which  will  complete  his  hospitality  for  the  soul  with  the 
sj-mbolic  or  sacramental  fellowship  of  food  for  the  body  also.  To 
send  this  people  away  hungry  would  seem  a  cold  and  unsocial 
thing  to  do  after  such  teaching  as  he  had  been  giving  them,  teach- 
ing about  the  Gracious  Father  who  cares  for  His  earthly  children 
and  would  have  them  care  for  each  other.  Let  the  disciples  share 
their  provisions  with  their  hungry  and  weary  brethren  ;  for 
having  come  by  boat  they  had  more  reserves  of  food  with  them 
than  those  who  came  on  foot  (so  Menzies)  ;  cf.  viii.  2.  Sir  A,  F. 
Hort  remarks  (relative  to  the  'twelve  basketfuls  '  gathered  at  the 
end  of  the  meal)  that  these  words,  compared  with  what  is  said  in 
John  xiii.  29  about  the  notion  of  some  of  his  fellow  disciples  that 
Judas  left  the  Upper  Room  because  of  a  wish  of  the  Master's 
'  that  he  should  give  something  to  the  poor,'  'suggest  that  they 
may  have  been  in  the  habit  of  distributing  food  to  the  poor ; '  and 
that  even  the  number  of  the  baskets  of '  broken  pieces '  collected  in 
the  sequel  may  suggest  that  each  of  the  Twelve  '  habitually 
carried  '  such  a  basket  '  to  hold  provisions.'  The  latter  conjecture 
is  so  far  borne  out  by  viii.  14,  where  we  read  'and  they  forgot  to 
take  bread'  (when  starting  on  a  journey  to  the  other  side  of  the 
lake)  ;  and  even  in  a  less  thoroughgoing  form  than  that  stated 
above  (see  note  on  43),  it  would  give  special  point  to  Jesus'  con- 
fident proposal  to  the  Twelve.  He  will  have  the  people  remain 
and  be  provided  for  by  the  disciples. 

Shall  we  g'o  and  buy  ?     They  think  of  their  resources  and 
of  what  was  required. 


200  ST.  MARK  6.  38-40.     X^k 

go  and  buy  two  hundred  pennyworth  of  bread,  and  give 

3S  them   to  eat?      And  he  saith   unto  them,    How  many 

loaves  have  ye?    go  and  see.     And  when  they  knew, 

39  they  say,  Five,  and  two   fishes.     And  he   commanded 
them  that  all  should  «■  sit  down  by  companies  upon  the 

40  green  grass.     And  they  sat  down  in  ranks,  by  hundreds, 

*  Gr.  recline 


two  hundred  pennjrwortli  of  bread.  A  hasty,  indeterminate 
estimate.  Luke  omits  this,  and  Matthew  passes  over  the  sugges- 
tion to  purchase.  '  Penny '  is  a  misleading  rendering  of  the  coin 
in  question,  the  denarius — all  the  more  so  that,  as  has  been 
noticed,  in  most  of  its  occurrences  in  the  N.  T.  it  suggests  the 
idea  of  a  liberal  sum.  It  varied  in  value  from  about  ^\d.  to  ']\d. 
It  was  the  stated  day's  wage  for  a  labouring  man  (Matt.  xx.  2, 
&c.).  '  Shilling  '  or/w;/c  would  be  a  better  rendering  than  '  penny.' 
Two  hundred  denarii  might  represent  something  over  £'7  of  our 
mone}'. 

38.  How  many  loaves  have  ye  ?  Only  Mark  tells  us  that  the 
disciples  were  sent  to  find  this  out.  John  introduces  Andrew 
here,  as  telling  that  there  were  five  loaves  and  two  fishes  in  the 
hand  of  a  lad  who  was  present  (vi.  8,  9\  Jesus,  says  Menzies, 
'  does  not  want  the  disciples  to  buy  bread,  but  to  produce  what 
they  have,  for  the  common  benefit  .  .  .  The  loaf  of  those  days  was 
a  thick  scone  about  the  size  of  a  plate,'  hardly  enough  for  a  full 
meal  for  one  hungry  man  (see  Luke  xi.  5  f.  \  So  in  the  multipli- 
cation of  food  for  Elisha,  recorded  in  2  Kings  iv.  42  44  a  story 
which  seems  to  have  influenced  our  narrative^,  twenty  barley 
loaves  are  not  thought  nearly  enough  for  a  hundred  men.  The 
*  fishes  '  would  be  of  the  dried  sort  used  as  a  relish  to  the  bread. 

39.  sit  down  by  companies:  lit.  'recline — companies,  com- 
panies,' as  at  tabic,  a  Hebraism  (So  'in  ranks'  below.)  Jesus 
proceeds  to  organize  a  common  meal  for  the  people,  a  form  of 
fellowship  which  among  the  Jews  had  a  markedly  religious  aspect 
(cf.  41).  The  instruction  that  they  should  be  so  arranged  was 
given  throuRh  the  disciples  ;  so  Luke  and  John.  Provision  was 
thus  made  for  an  orderly  disposition  of  the  crowd.  Reclining  was 
the  general  ancient  posture  at  food. 

upon  the  green  grass.  Onlj'  Mark  notices  its  greenness, 
which  suggests  sprinp;  (cf.  John  vi.  4)  in  Palestine.  Later  it  would 
become  scorched  and  brown. 

in  ranks :  ///.  'plots,  plots,'  like  garden  beds.  The  word  is 
used  ordinarily  of  the  beds  of  garden  herbs  (not  of  flowers) ;  and 
the  idea  seems  to  be  simply  that  of  regular  rectangular  arrange- 


ST.  MARK  6.  41-43-     XMk  201 

and  by  fifties.     And  he  took  the  five  loaves  and  the  two  41 
fishes,  and  looking  up  to  heaven,  he  blessed,  and  brake 
the  loaves ;  and  he  gave  to  the  disciples  to  set  before 
them ;  and  the  two  fishes  divided  he  among  them  all. 
And  they  did  all  eat,  and  were  filled.     And  they  took  42,  43 


ment,  in  groups  of  fifties  and  hundreds.  Order  wouid  thus  be 
preserved,  and  the  matter  of  distribution,  as  well  as  of  counting, 
made  easy. 

41.  he  took  the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes.  By  this  action 
Jesus  took  the  place  of  recognized  host,  and  the  provisions  were 
brought  to  him  as  such. 

looking'  up  to  heaven  :  that  is,  in  the  attitude  of  prayer.  See 
in  the  O.  T.  Job  xxii.  26,  and  in  the  Gospels,  Mark  vii.  34  ;  John 
xi.  41. 

hlessed  :  that  is  '  gave  thanks  '  :  cf.  John  vi.  1 1,  '  having  given 
thanks  '  The  full  phrase  would  be  '  blessed  God  '  over  his  gifts. 
Compare  the  regular  Jewish  'grace,'  which  may  go  back  in  sub- 
stance to  Jesus'  da}'.  '  Blessed  be  thou,  O  Lord  our  God,  King  of 
the  world,  who  bringest  forth  bread  from  the  earth.'  Very  similar 
in  spirit  are  some  words  in  the  primitive  Jewish  Christian  prayer 
of  Thanksgiving  after  a  common  meal,  in  the  Teaching  of  the 
Apostles,  which  may  go  back  at  this  point  to  the  original  domestic 
'  breaking  of  bread  '  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  as  described  in  Acts 
ii.  42.  *  We  give  thanks  to  thee.  Holy  Father  .  .  .  Thou,  Master 
All-sovereign,  didst  create  the  universe  for  thy  name's  sake,  and 
didst  give  meat  and  drink  to  men  for  enjoyment,  that  they  might 
give  thee  thanks.'  There  must  have  been  something  specially 
characteristic  of  Jesus  in  the  way  he  'blessed  and  brake'  bread, 
to  judge  from  the  fact  that  it  was  in  this  act  that  the  two  disciples 
at  Emmaus  recognized  the  mj-sterious  stranger  who  had  joined 
them  on  the  way  thither  (Luke  xxiv.  30 f.,  35). 

and  brake.  This  was  part  of  the  simple  ritual  of  table- 
worship  at  a  social  meal  among  God's  Covenant  People,  the  Jews  : 
Mark  xiv.  22  ;  Luke  xxiv.  30  ;  cf.  Actsxxvii.  35.  It  gave  its  name 
to  such  'fellowship'  meals  among  the  early  Christians,  namely 
'  the  breaking  of  the  Bread'  or  Loaf:  cf  Acts  ii.  42,  xx.  7,  11  ; 
r  Cor.  ix.  16.  Small  pieces  of  the  loaf  used  for  this  purpose  were 
handed  round  among  all  at  table,  before  they  began  their  meal 
proper  :  and  this  looks  like  what  was  done  in  this  case.  The  verb 
used  for  the  'breaking'  here  described  is  in  Mark  (and  Luke)  a 
strong  one,  'broke  up'  {Kaiiklase),  'broke  in  pieces,'  while 
Matthew  has  the  oidinary  form  lor  '  brake.' 

42.  were  filled,    Tije  word  is  a  strong  one,  usually  of  '  fodder- 


202  ST.  MARK  6.  43-     X^k 

up   broken  pieces,   twelve  basketfuls,  and  also  of  the 

ine'  cattle;  so  'were  satisfied.'  John  accentuates  this  by  the 
words  '  Ukewise  also  of  the  fishes  as  much  as  they  would  (vi  1 1). 
43  they  took  up  broken  pieces,  twelve  basketfuls.  Probably 
mentioned  to  suggest  the  great  quantity  that  had  been  used  in  the 
meal  itself  ;  compare  the  parallel  miracle  in  2  Kings  iv.  43  f  ,  They 
shall  eat  and  shall  leave  thereof.  So  he  set  it  before  them  and 
they  did  eat,  and  left  thereof,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord. 

But  was  it  really  a  miracle  of  the  class  described  in  2  Kings  iv 
42-44  that  Jesus  here  wrought;  or  was  it  one  of  another  kind 
altogether,  one  in  the  spiritual  sphere  alone,  in  which  his  wonted 
deeds  in  revelation  of  the   Divine  love,  as  the  sovereign  principle 
of  the  Coming  Kingdom,  have  hitherto    chiefiy  lain?     It  is  im- 
possible not  to  ask  this  question.     For  the  miracle  of  the  feeding 
as  related  in  the  Gospels  does  seem  to  belong  to  the  non-natural 
and  magical  type  of  'signs'   which    Jesus    stedfastly  refused  to 
'  give  to  this  generation.'  when  challenged  by  the  Pharisees  a  little 
later  (viii    11  f.)  to  shew  '  a  sign  from  heaven.'     Indeed  the  manna, 
to  supply  supernaturally  the  People's  necessity  in  the  W.lderness, 
is  cited  in  John  vi.  30  f.  as  such  a  sign  ;  and  the  mode  of  multipli- 
cation which  the  narrative  here  implies  is  in  essentials  of  a  similar 
order      It  is  not  to  the  point  to  reply  that  this  most  marvellous 
demonstration  of  Jesus'  Divine  mission  had  a  beneficent  purpose, 
and  was  also  capable  of  spiritual  suggestion  when  viewed  symboli- 
cally, as  in  the  use  made  of  it  in  John  vi -though    not    in  the 
Synoptic    account.      It    cuts  across   the  fundawental  principle   of 
Jesus' whole  method  of  bringing  home  to  men  gradually  the  con- 
viction of  his  Divine  commission,  his  essential  Messiahship,  for  fear 
of  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  those  possessed  by  a  crude 
conception    of  Messianic    power,    whether    in    a    national    or   a 
miraculous  sense.     All  his  efforts  to  stop  the  noismg  abroad  of 
semi-private  deeds  of  extraordinary  healing  power,  exerci-ed  m 
the  service  of  pitying  love,  and  done  in  his  Father  s  name  and  as 
revealing  the  spirit  of  his  promised  Kingdom— all  these  efforts  to 
prevent  misconception  on  a  relatively  small  scale  seem  stultified  by 
so  stupendous  an  exception.      It  is  one  unsafeguarded,  too,  by  any 
recorded    precaution   against  its  meaning,  for  Jesus    person  and 
mission,  being  taken  in  a  wrong  sense  by  •  the  multitude.      Nor 
again  is  there  any  reference  in  the  Synoptic  story    as  >s  usual,  to 
the  impression   produced  (see  even  51  f-^  or  to  the  effect  of  so 
overwhelming  a  fact  upon  the  course  of  his  ministry.     The  contrast 
afforded  by  the  later  account  in  John  vi  in  th.s  respect  (14!.,  ct. 
note  below  on  45%  as  in  several  others   only  serves  to  bring  home 
the  difficulty.     Simply  as  exegetes,  then,  faithful  interpreters  ot 
Mark's  narrative  in  its  own  light-as  a  self-consistent  record  ot  a 


I 


ST.  MARK  6.  43.     XMk  203 

self-consistent  ministry  carried  through  in  spite  of  all  '  slowness 
of  heart'  in  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed — we  cannot  but  seek 
to  get  behind  the  meaning  of  this  episode,  as  it  lies  on  the  surface 
of  Mark's  record  (and  still  more  of  the  later  ones),  to  something 
more  harmonious  with  the  whole  context  of  Jesus'  mind,  as  mani- 
fest in  the  broad  principles  of  his  speech  and  action  in  the  Synoptic 
narrative  generallj'. 

Accordingly  we  must  conclude  that  a  process  of  unconscious 
re-interpretation — of  which  we  have  many  minor  instances,  both 
for  Jesus'  words  and  deeds — has  left  its  mark  upon  the  tradition 
of  this  fundamentally  characteristic  and  authentic  story.  How 
this  has  taken  place,  and  just  what  were  the  original  facts,  we  may 
not  be  able  fully  to  explain.  But  that  some  such  modification  of 
the  original  facts  must,  in  consistency  with  Mark's  own  picture  of 
Jesus  elsewhere,  be  assumed,  the  modern  student  of  the  Gospels 
who  approaches  them  in  the  light  of  the  demonstrable  develop- 
ments visible  elsewhere  in  one  Gospel  as  compared  with  the  more 
authentic  form  of  tradition  preserved  in  one  or  more  of  the  others,^ 
can  have  but  little  doubt. 

As  a  sample  of  how  the  story  may  have  actually  occurred,  one 
may  cite  Menzies'  view  of  the  matter.  Starting  from  the  fact  that 
Jesus'  words,  even  as  reported,  represent  him  as  looking  to  the 
disciples  to  supply  the  people's  needs  from  their  own  resources, 
he  suggests  that  not  a  few  (like  the  lad  referred  to  in  John)  had 
some  provision  with  them.  'It  is  nowhere  said  that'  the  five 
loaves  and  two  fishes  'were  all  the  food  that  could  be  found  on  the 
spot ;  and  a  person  here  and  there  may  have  had  something  with 
him  and  acted  as  the  centre  '  of  supplies  for  his  company.  What, 
then,  Jesus  actually  aimed  at  and  achieved  was  the  turning  of  this 
mixed  multitude,  composed  of  innumerable  personal  and  family 
units,  each  with  their  own  self-regarding  interests  and  impulses, 
then  and  there  into  a  single  brotherhood,  or  union  of  social  groups, 
for  the  purpose  of  sharing  in  common  what  was  to  begin  with  the 
property  of  but  a  few.  Thus,  those  before  strangers  to  most  of 
their  fellows,  under  the  spell  of  Jesus'  message  of  Divine  Father- 
hood and  human  brotherhood,  were  one  and  all  brought  to  feel  of 
one  soul,  a  single  family  of  God.  This  truth  received  impressive 
symbolic  expression  and  consecration  in  the  rite  of  common  bless- 
ing, breaking,  and  distribution  in  very  small  portions,  of  the  few 
loaves  and  fishes  which  Jesus  set  apart  for  the  purpose,  in  keeping 
with  a  familiar  usage  of  table-fellowship  among  the  Jews  on  solemn 
occasions,  like  the  eve  of  Sabbath  and  other  sacred  feasts.     To 

^  e.  g.  the  meaning  of  the  '  sign  of  Jonah  '  in  Luke  xi.  30  (cf. 
Matt.  xvi.  4)  and  Matt.  xii.  40  respectively,  and  the  duplication  of 
the  demoniacs  and  of  the  asses  in  Matt.  viii.  2S,  xxi.  2,  as  compared 
with  Mark  v.  2  and  xi.  2. 


204  ST.  MARK  6.  44.     XMk 

44  fishes.     And  they  that  ate  the  loaves  were  five  thousand 
men. 


achieve  all  this  by  personal  influence  of  such  short  duration  was 
indeed  a  spiritual  miracle,  a  triumph  of  the  power  of  Jesus'  spoken 
word  worthy  of  remembrance  and  record,  and  an  anticipation  of 
the  abiding  fruit  of  such  influence  in  the  institution  of  the  '  breaking 
of  bread '  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Christian  People,  the  new  Eccksia 
or  Church  of  God. 

Such  a  reading  of  the  original  significance  of  the  Feeding  of  the 
Five  Thousand  fits  it  into  its  position  in  Mark's  whole  narrative, 
as  the  story  with  its  present  kind  of  miraculous  colouring,  suggested 
by  what  is  not  said  rather  than  by  what  actually  is  (41  fl".),  surely 
does  not.  Yet  the  misapprehension,  due  perhaps  to  the  silence  of 
tradition  as  to  the  sources  of  the  supply  for  the  meal  itself— frugal 
as  it  would  be  in  these  circumstances— is  one  which  would  easily 
arise  in  the  course  of  time.  A  similar  case  of  the  accidents  apt  to 
occur  in  tradition  is  probably  to  be  seen  in  the  second  or  '  doublet ' 
version  of  the  Feeding  in  viii.  i-io,  which  was  absent  from  the 
form  of  tradition  known  to  Luke  (see  further  ad  he). 

The  quantity  taken  up  shewed  the  scale  of  the  provision.  The 
word  for  basket  {kophtnos)  here  is  the  same  in  all  four  narratives, 
and  is  diff"erent  from  that  in  the  subsequent  narrative  of  the  Four 
Thousand.  It  denotes  a  stout  wicker  basket,  such  as  the  Jewish 
hawker  at  Rome  had  with  him  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  his 
whole  stock,  including  food.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  twelve 
baskets  used  on  this  occasion  may  have  been  those  in  which  the 
Twelve  had  carried  the  food  which  they  required  on  their  mis- 
sionary journey  recently  finished  :  but  this  is  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  Jesus'  charge  to  them  when  starting.  Sir  A.  F.  Hort  thinks  that 
'  the  number  suggests  that  each  disciple  habitually  carried  a 
cophiniis  to  hold  provisions.'  But  perhaps  it  is  most  natural  to 
suppose  that  such  large  baskets  — apparently  of  the  long  deep  sort 
which  one  sees  on  the  backs  of  Swiss  peasants— really  belonged 
to  the  equipment  of  the  boat  they  had  come  in,  and  that  each  of 
the  Twelve  fetched  one  from  it  after  the  meal. 

44.  five  thousand  men:  '  men'  as  distinguished  from  women 
and  children.  Matthew  says  expressly  '  beside  women  and 
children '  (xiv.  21). 

From  Luke  (ix.  10')  we  gather  that  the  scene  of  this  episode  was 
on  the  way  to  '  a  city  called  Bethsaida  '  (see  note  on  verse  33). 
Most  see  in  this  Bethsaida  Julias,  a  little  way  inland  from  the 
northern  side  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  east  of  the  Jordan,  in  the 
district  of  the  lower  Gaulonitis  (not  in  Galilee  proper),  near  where 
the  river  enters  the  lake.     It  was  raised  from  the  rank  of  a  village 


ST.  MARK  6.  45.     XMk  205 

And  straightway  he  constrained  his  disciples  to  enter  45 
into  the  boat,  and  to  go  before  him  unto  the  other  side 


to  that  of  a  '  city  '  by  Philip  the  Tetrarch,  who  also  attached  to  it 
the  name  Julias  in  honour  of  Julia,  the  daughter  of  Augustus.  Its 
site  is  supposed  by  modern  travellers  to  be  found  at  ct-Tell,  near 
where  the  Jordan  enters  the  green,  grassy  plain  called  el-Baieiha, 
or  at  Mes'adiych  in  the  same  plain,  but  nearer  the  Lake  and  at  the 
river's  mouth. 

vi.  45-52.  The  Walking  on  the  Sea  (cf.  Matt.  xiv.  22-33  ;  John 
vi.  16-21).  We  have  no  longer  the  fourfold  narrative  ;  for  Luke 
drops  out,  most  likely  because  it  was  not  in  his  special  source. 
But  we  may  notice  the  view  taken  in  John  of  the  narrative, 
especially  in  Mark,  on  which  it  is  chiefly  based. 

45.  And  straightway  lie  constrained  his  disciples.  The 
explanation  of  this  is  found  in  John's  Gospel.  It  alone  refers  to 
the  impression  produced  by  the  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand. 
The  people  felt  Jesus  to  be  '  of  a  truth  the  prophet  (of  whom 
Moses  spoke)  that  cometh  into  the  world.'  Nay  more,  he  divined 
'  that  they  were  about  to  come  and  take  him  by  force,  to  make 
him  king'  (vi.  14,  15).  Hence  he  'withdrew  again  into  the 
mountain  himself  alone'  (vi.  15).  On  the  other  hand  the  Johannine 
narrative  implicitly  contradicts  the  Synoptic  account  of  Jesus 
sending  the  disciples  on  before  him  'to  the  other  side  '  (while  he 
himself  dismissed  the  multitude),  fearing  the  effect  of  the  people's 
enthusiasm  upon  his  own  disciples,  as  to  whose  insight  into  the 
real  nature  of  his  mission  he  was  still  in  doubt  (cf.  his  questioning 
of  them  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  in  ch.  viii).  The  disciples  no  doubt 
required  to  be  '  constrained.'  For  it  could  not  but  seem  strange 
to  them  that  he  should  separate  himself  from  them,  and  send  them 
away  from  the  very  place  he  had  chosen  with  a  view  to  giving 
them  rest. 

unto  the  other  side  to  Bethsaida:  rather  'towards'  {pros), 
'in  the  direction  of,'  Bethsaida,  perhaps  the  next  lake-side  village. 
Matthew  says  simply  '  to  the  other  side '  without  mentioning 
Bethsaida  (xiv.  22  .  John  says  'over  the  sea  unto  Capernaum' 
(vi.  17),  i.e.  south-westward  across  a  segment  of  the  Lake — the 
same  way  as  they  had  come.  Further  Mark  and  Matthew  both 
state  explicitly  that  they  came  at  last  to  Geiaiesaret  (vi.  53  ;  Matt, 
xiv.  34) — which  may  explain  John's  reference  to  Capernaum. 
Were  there  then  two  Bethsaidas,  one  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Jordan  where  it  enters  the  Lake,  and  another  somewhat  west 
of  it  ?  Bethsaida,  meaning  '  Fisher-home,'  was  a  descriptive  name 
likely  enough  to  recur  around  the  Lake.  But  it  is  really  needless 
to  assume  this  explanation.     For  the  storm  may  have  changed  the 


2o6  ST.  MARK  6.  46-4S.     X^k 

to   Bethsaida,  while  he  himself  sendeth  the  multitude 

46  away.    And  after  he  had  taken  leave  of  them,  he  departed 

47  into  the  mountain  to  pray.     And  when  even  was  come, 
the  boat  was  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  he  alone  on 

48  the  land.     And  seeing  them  distressed  in  rowing,  for  the 
wind  was  contrary  unto  them,  about  the  fourth  watch  of 


course  of  the  boat  from  E.  to  W.,  cf.  verse  53.  'To  the  farther 
side '  may  here  be  relative  to  the  Jordan  as  dividing  the  eastern 
and  western  shores  of  the  Lake  at  the  northern  end  of  it  :  and  it 
was,  in  any  case,  natural  that  Jesus  should  wish  his  disciples  to 
go  eastwards,  further  from  the  route  bj'  which  the  excited  people 
would  be  returning  to  their  homes,  westward  of  the  spot  where 
he  stood.  Sir  G.  A.  Smith's  suggestion  {Htsl.  Geogr.,  p.  458)  that 
this  was  'some  way  down  the  eastern  coast,'  and  so  further  east 
than  Bethsaida  Julias,  is  excluded  by  the  fact  that  such  a  situation 
would  make  the  land  route  to  it  much  further  than  that  across  the 
Lake  by  boat  from  Capernaum,  and  so  less  consistent  with  verse  33. 

46.  taken  leave.  The  words  are  used  of  taking  farewell  of 
friends.      It  was  a  kindl}',  though  decided,  dismissal. 

into  the  mountain:  or  'the  high  ground'  overlooking  the 
lake.  The  attitude  of  the  people,  following  on  the  death  of  John, 
made  another  crisis  in  his  career,  which  required  prayer  and 
thought ;  cf.  i.  35. 

47.  when  even  was  come.  The  miracle  had  taken  place  not 
long  before  sunset,  verse  35.  How  long  after  sunset  is  here  meant 
is  not  stated,  but  left  to  be  gathered  from  verse  48. 

was  in  the  midst  of  the  sea.  They  had  rowed,  says  John 
vi.  19,  '  about  five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs'  — little  more  than 
half  way  across  the  Lake  at  its  broadest.  But  probably  Mark  does 
not  mean  the  absolute  midst  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  — for  that  was 
not  the  route  they  were  to  take — but  simply  '  well  out  to  sea ' 
(Sv/ete).  An  early  gloss  or  explanatory  addition,  '(was)  since  a 
longtime,^  anticipates  the  reader's  surprise  at  their  still  being  no 
further  ;  the  reason  of  which  is  hinted  in  the  next  verse,  viz.  a 
strong  contrary  wind. 

48.  the  fourth  watch.  From  the  height  Jesus  had  watched 
their  distress,  and  now  went  to  their  relief.  The  '  fourth  watch  * 
was  from  3  to  6  a.m.  The  Jews  (cf.  Luke  xii.  38)  reckoned  by 
three  watches,  \k\c  first  or  beginning  of  watches  fsunset  to  10  p.m.), 
the  middle  watch  (lo  p.m.  to  2  a.m.%  and  the  morning  watch 
(2  a.m.  to  sunrise).  The  Romans  reckoned  by  four  watches,  and 
this  reckoning  is  followed  in  Mark. 


ST.  MxVRK  6.  49-52      XMk  207 

the  night  he  cometh  unto  them,  walking  on  the  sea ;  and 
he  would  have  passed  by  them :    but  they,  when  they  49 
saw  him  walking  on  the  sea,  supposed  that  it  was  an 
apparition,  and  cried  out :  for  they  all  saw  him,  and  were  50 
troubled.      But   he   straightway   spake   with    them,   and 
saith  unto  them,  Be  of  good  cheer :    it   is   I ;   be  not 
afraid.     And  he  went  up  unto  them  into  the  boat;  and  51 
the  wind  ceased :  and  they  were  sore  amazed  in  them- 
selves ;  for  they  understood  not  concerning  the  loaves,  52 
but  their  heart  was  hardened. 


woTild  have  passed  by  them :  i.  e.  made  as  though  he  would 
pass  them  (cf.  Luke  xxiv.  28).  This  is  reported  only  by  Mark, 
and  means  that  Jesus  would  test  them  and  train  their  faith. 

49.  cried  out.  They  did  not  recognize  Jesus,  and  the  figure 
looked  spectral  and  fearful  as  it  moved  on  the  water,  in  the 
desolate  hour  before  dawn. 

50.  all  saw  him  :  i.  e.  it  was  not  the  delusion,  therefore,  of  one 
heated  brain  or  overstrained  eye. 

51.  and  the  •wind  ceased:  as  in  iv.  39.  The  Johannine 
account  has  instead  '  and  straightway  the  boat  was  at  the  land 
whither  they  were  going  '—a  touch  which  probably  has  a  symbolic 
significance,  whether  it  was  meant  in  the  first  instance  as  a  de- 
scription of  the  apostles'  feehng  that  with  Jesus'  presence  the  end 
of  their  journey  was  as  good  as  reached,  or  as  a  fact  marvellous  in 
its  own  nature.  In  any  case  this  suggests  that  we  must  allow  for 
the  possibility  of  developments  at  various  stages  in  the  tradition  of 
this  episode  (cf.  Peter's  walking  on  the  water,  in  Matt,  ad loc,  and 
the  notes  there  and  on  xiv.  33'),  which  occurred  in  the  obscure 
hours  before  dawn,  and  might  well  be  invested  from  the  first  with 
a  special  sense  of  mystery.  It  was  not  recorded  in  the  form  of  the 
apostolic  tradition  which  Luke  follows  (preferring  it  to  Mark's, 
where  they  are  not  at  one). 

sore  amazed  in  themselves.  The}'  were  profoundly  moved 
and  staggered,  but  did  not  or  could  not  give  expression  to  their 
thoughts  (contrast  Matt.  xiv.  33! 

52.  understood  not  concerning' the  loaves.  The  immediately 
preceding  miracle,  as  Mark  describes  it,  should  have  made  this 
further  miracle  no  such  subject  of  amazement  to  them.  But  it  was 
not  so,  and  the  reason  given  for  it  is  that  '  their  heart  was 
hardened '  or  insensitive  (cf.  iii.  5).  That  is,  they  were  not  in  the 
state  of  mind  to  receive  the  proper  impression.     This  explanation 


2o8  ST.  MARK  6.  53-     P 

53      [P]  And  when  they  had  «■  crossed  over,  they  came  to 
the  land   unto  Gennesaret,  and  moored  to  the  shore. 

"^  Or,  crossed  over  to  the  land,  they  came  unto  Gennesaret 

really  explains  little  or  nothing  :  it  means  simply  that  the  narrator 
is  at  a  loss  to  understand  howthey  were  so  unprepared  by  the  recent 
experience  of  a  miracle  so  stupendous — as  he  conceived  it — that  the 
one  just  narrated  so  amazed  men  who  had  already  experienced 
Jesus'  illimitable  control  over  the  order  of  Nature.  To  the  narrator 
himself  such  a  view  of  Jesus'  power  was  now  a  matter  of  course. 

This  note  therefore  but  deepens  our  impression  that  the  matter 
of  t!ie  Loaves  was  really  rather  other  and  less  non-natural  than  is 
suggested  by  the  traditional  account.  Moreover  the  theory  of 
gradual  growth  of  the  marvellous,  in  the  telling  of  the  episode  of 
a  Walking  on  the  Water,  receives  confirmation  from  the  fresh 
feature  of  wonder  found  in  Matthew's  later  version  of  it  (which  has 
also  heightening  touches  in  verse  33,  in  describing  the  impression 
produced),  viz.  the  incident  of  Peter  stepping  from  the  boat  into 
the  sea  and  walking  on  the  water  to  Jesus  (xiv.  28-31).  While, 
then,  it  may  be  impossible  to  explain  the  whole  miracle  away  by 
saying  that  Jesus  only  walked  upon  the  shore  and  was  taken  by 
the  disciples,  panic-stricken  and  in  the  dark  as  they  were,  for 
a  spectre  moving  on  the  sea — which  seems  precluded  by  certain 
particulars  in  the  narrative  as  it  stands— still  this  nature-miracle, 
one  of  the  strangest  of  its  class,  may,  on  the  analogy  of  the  feed- 
ing of  the  Five  Thousand  (itself  one  of  the  most  stupendous  kind), 
really  have  been  in  keeping  with  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature. 

(c)  Popularity  culminating,  also  breach  with  Pharisaism  : 
vi.  53-vii-  23. 

vi.  53-56.  Ministry  of  Jesus  in  the  Plain  of  Gennesaret  (cf.  Matt, 
xiv.  34-36).  Tliis  brief  paragraph  has  no  parallel  in  Luke  or  John  ; 
probably  it  was  peculiar  to  Peter's  tradition,  being  one  of  the  most 
graphic  of  all  Mark's  descriptions.  It  bears  in  every  line  the  signs 
of  a  transcript  from  the  report  of  an  eye-witness. 

53.  And  when  they  had  crossed  over,  they  came  to  the  land 
tinto  Gennesaret.  Rather  as  in  the  mnrgin  of  the  R.  V.,  'and 
when  they  had  crossed  over  to  the  land,  theycame  untoGennesaret.' 
So  the  place  where  they  landed  at  last,  contrary  to  the  original 
plan  (owing  to  the  wind),  was  south  of  Capernaum.  This 
Gennesaret,  from  which  the  lake  seems  to  have  taken  one  of  its 
names,  is  supposed  to  be  the  modern  el-Ghmveir,  'the  little 
hollow,'  a  charming  plain  some  three  miles  long  and  a  little  more 
than  a  mile  broad.  '  Such  is  the  fertility  of  the  soil,'  says  Josephus, 
'  that  it  rejects  no  plant,  and  accordingly  all  are  here  cultivated  by 
the  husbaniiman,  for  so  genial  is  the  air  that  it  suits  every  variety  ' 
■Jewish  War,  III.  x.  8). 


ST.  MARK  6.  54-56.     P  209 

And  when  they  were  come  out  of  the  boat,  straightway  54 
the  people  knew  him,  and  ran  round   about  that  whole  55 
region,  and  began  to  carry  about  on  their  beds  those 
that  were  sick,  where  they  heard  he  was.     And  whereso-  56 
ever  he  entered,  into  villages,  or  into  cities,  or  into  the 
country,  they  laid  the   sick  in   the    marketplaces,  and 
besought  him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were  but  the 
border  of  his  garment :  and  as  many  as  touched  ^  him 
were  made  whole. 

*  Or,  it 

54-56.  What  made  Jesus  land  forthwith  on  the  populous  plain 
ofGennesaret  and  undertake  at  this  stage  what  was  apparently 
a  rather  prolonged  and  systematic  ministry  there  ?  Possibly  it  was 
a  result  of  his  recent  experience  of  the  popular  readiness  to  hear 
him,  as  shewn  by  the  crowd's  following  him  in  his  retirement  with 
his  disciples.  He  may  have  decided  during  the  night  of  prayer 
(v.  46)  to  continue  his  appeal  to  the  masses  as  before,  in  spite  of 
the  growing  opposition  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  rumours  that  his 
mission  was  attracting  the  uneasy  notice  of  Herod  and  his  parti- 
sans, the  Herodians  (see  viii.  15,  and  compare  Luke  xiii.  31-33, 
though  the  latter  passage  may  refer  to  a  later  stage  than  that  now 
reached).  Had  Jesus  alread\'  decided  to  retire  (cf.  iii.  7)  from  the 
regions  adjacent  to  Tiberias  (one  of  the  seats  of  Herod's  court, 
some  seven  miles  south  of  Capernaum,  and  a  place  Jesus  appears 
to  have  shunned  deliberately),  as  he  did  a  little  later  (vii.  24,  cf. 
viii.  13),  he  would  not  have  allowed  even  the  eagerness  of  the 
people  of  Gennesaret  for  healing  to  detain  him  on  the  tour  of  some 
duration  among  their  cities,  villages,  and  farms,  implied  in  verse  56. 
Perhaps  the  development  of  the  controversy  with  the  Pharisees 
and  their  scribes,  or  religious  experts,  which  Mark  proceeds  to 
record  in  vii.  r  fT.,  but  which  probably  included  other  episodes 
(some  of  which  may  be  found  in  ii.  18-28  as  well  as  viii,  11  ff.), 
led  Jesus  to  reconsider  the  matter  and  withdraw  from  the  danger 
of  the  joint  plotting  of  his  foes,  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians— 
now  at  length  driven  to  forget  their  deep  differences  in  their 
common  fear  of  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  (cf.  iii.  6). 

64,  knew  him:  rather  'recognized  him,'  as  having  seen  him 
before  at  Capernaum  or  in  their  own  villages. 

55,  beds :  that  is,  pallets  (cf.  ii.  3). 

56.  border  of  his  garment:  see  on  ch.  v,  27. 

The  paragraph  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the  rapidity  with  which 
the  news  of  the  coming  of  Jesus  spread;  and  of  the  widespread 
faith  of  the  people  in  his  power  to  heal. 

P 


2IO  ST.  MARK  7.  i.     XMk 

7       [X^i^J  And  there  are  gathered  together  unto  him  the 

False  and  true  ideas  of  Purity,  vii.  1-23. 

This  section  falls  into  three  distinct  stages  : 

( i)  Jesus  answers  Pharisaic  criticism  with  a  far-reaching  counter- 
criticism  (1-13). 

(ii)  He  declares  before  all,  in  a  'parabolic'  form  (14,  15),  the 
vital  principle  underlying  the  special  point  at  issue. 

(iii)  He  explains  the  same  more  explicitly  to  his  disciples  in 
private,  at  their  request  (19-23). 

1-8.  A  question  regarding  ritual  purity  {cL  Matt.  xv.  1-9).  The 
fact  that  some  disciples  of  Jesus  were  observed  to  eat  without  per- 
forming the  usual  ceremonial  ablutions  was  made  a  matter  of 
complaint.  Jesus  uses  the  occasion  to  expose  the  false  ideas  that 
were  current  as  to  the  relative  importance  of '  the  tradition  of  the 
Elders  '  and  '  the  commandment  of  God  ' — a  fundamental  principle 
of  true  piety. 

1.  there  are  gathered  togrether.  Where,  we  are  not  told. 
But  a  rather  deliberate  interview  is  seemingly  in  question.  We 
have  here,  in  fact,  a  decisive  stage  in  the  controversy  between 
Jesus  and  the  local  representatives  of  ceremonial  Judaism,  which 
may  hitherto  have  been  more  accidental  in  nature,  like  the 
challenge  due  to  the  disciples'  non-observance  of  the  practice  of 
fixed  fasts,  such  as  those  of  the  Pharisees  lii.  18  ff.).  Now  they 
seem  to  have  called  in  the  advice  and  help  of  a  deputation  from  the 
central  authorities  of  orthodoxy  in  Jerusalem,  certain  scribes,  who 
had  been  for  some  little  time  on  the  spot  watching  the  situation 
and  collecting  evidence.  A  recent  observation  of  their  own  as  to 
the  practice  of  some  of  Jesus'  disciples  (cf  Luke  xi.  38)  had  given 
them  the  opening  for  a  challenge,  and  for  the  debate  they  felt  now 
ready  to  bring  on,  touching  not  only  the  specific  practice  in  ques- 
tion but  also  the  whole  principle  of  the  authority  of  'the  tradition 
of  the  elders.'  This  body  of  oral  Law  formed  an  integral  part,  and 
with  the  Pharisees  of  the  day  tiiat  most  honoured  in  the  observance, 
of  the  whole  Torali  or  way  of  life  under  the  Law,  as  currently 
understood  by  strictly  '  observant '  Jews,  as  distinct  from  the 
mass  of 'common'  persons.  It  was,  then,  the  grave  question  of 
the  official  interpretation  of  Judaism  as  authoritative,  that  was  set 
before  the  Galilaean  '  prophet '  for  his  answer — by  which  he  would 
stand  or  fall  for  Pharisaism.  In  fact  Edersheim.  whose  Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  (ii.  8ff.)  may  be  referred  to  for  the 
Rabbinic  evidence  bearin;;-  on  this  passage,  says  that  according  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  Rabbinic  Pharisaism  breaches  of  the 
traditional  law  'involved  heavier  guilt'  than  sins  against  the 
written  Law  of  Moses  (compare  C.  I'aylor,  Sayings  of  the  Jewish 
Fathers,  J 05  ff). 


ST.  MARK  7.  2.     XMk  211 

Pharisees,  and  certain  of  the  scribes,  which  had  come 
from  Jerusalem,  and  had  seen  that  some  of  his  disciples  3 
ate  their  bread  with  '"«■  defiled,  that  is,  unwashen,  hands. 

*  Or,  common 


certain  of  the  scribes,  which  had  come  from  Jerusalem. 

Such  are  already  mentioned  in  iii.  22.  An  opportunity  for  trying 
him  with  entangling  questions  is  furnished  by  something  they  had 
seen  certain  of  his  disciples  do  (cf.  ii.  18,  24). 

2.  some  of  his  disciples:  not  all,  as  it  seems ;  and  not  Jesus 
himself  (yet  see  Luke  xi,  38,  a  case  of  his  not '  washing '  before  food), 
else  would  he  have  been  directly  challenged  as  to  his  own  practice, 
and  not  as  in  verse  5  about  his  disciples'  only.  It  was,  in  fact, 
a  point  on  which  Jesus,  while  himself  tending  to  conform  to  the 
devout  customs  usual  in  most  pious  circles  i_in  the  spiritual  succes- 
sion of  the  Chasidim,  '  the  pious  ones  '  of  the  Maccabasan  revolt 
against  all  laxity  in  usages,  of  whose  zeal  the  Pharisees  were  the 
exaggerated  exponents  as  regards  technical  forms  of  '  holiness '), 
did  not  feel  called  upon  to  enforce  such  ritual  developments  on 
all  his  disciples  on  every  occasion,  whatever  their  previous  habits 
of  outward  devotion. 

ate  their  bread  with  defiled  .  .  .  hands :  rather  '  common,' 
i  e.  unpurified  by  ritual  ablution.  The  emphasis  here  is  not  on 
religious  '  uncleanness  '  due  directly  to  contact  with  '  unclean ' 
persons  (e.  g.  Gentiles)  or  things,  but  on  eating,  that  is  taking  into 
oneself,  food  rendered  '  unclean '  by  contact  with  legally  unclean 
hands.  This  explains  and  so  far  justifies  the  evangelist's  reference 
in  verse  4  to  the  analogous  case  of  possible  defilement  through 
utensils  in  which  food  and  drink  were  prepared  or  conveyed  to  the 
lips.  In  both  cases  the  danger  of  such  defilement  of  a  man  through 
'  unclean  '  food  was,  according  to  the  Pharisees,  removed  only  by 
ritual  washing  or  lustration.  This  point,  which  has  a  bearing  on 
the  continuity  of  the  argument  in  14  f.,  seems  often  to  be  over- 
looked. The  point  has,  indeed,  been  noticed  by  the  learned 
Talmudic  scholar.  Rabbi  A.  Biichler  of  the  Jews'  College,  London  : 
but  he  questions  the  relevancy  of  the  concepti<in  to  the  conditions 
here  described.  He  argues  that  such  /m«5/irrt6/f  defilement,  from 
hands  to  food  and  again  to  the  eater,  applied  only  (a)  in  the  case 
of  Aaronic  priests,  in  virtue  of  their  priestly  duties,  and  v6),  even 
then,  only  in  relation  to  '  some  real  Levitical  impurity,'  not  to 
mere  presumptive  impurity — to  meet  which  ritual  washing  was 
introduced  byHillel  and  Shammai  shortly  before  Jesus'  day.  But 
this  admits  tiie  idea  of  '  impurity  '  as  transferable  from  hands, 
through  food,  to  persons  eating  the  food.  The  only  question  at 
issue  then  is,  was  there  in  Jesus'  day  a   tendency   prevalent  in 


212  ST.  MARK  7.  3-     Mk 

3  [Mk]  For  the  Pharisees,  ^and  all  the  Jews,'  except  they 
wash  their  hands  ^ diligently,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition 

*  Or,  up  to  the  elbow,  Gr.  -with  the  fist. 


Pharisaic  circles  to  extend  this  ideal  of  religious  '  purity  '  even  to 
others  than  priests,  to  practise  it  themselves,  and  to  judge  'he  piety 
of  those  who  laid  claim  to  be  specially  religious  -such  as  Rabbi 
Jesus  and  his  disciples— by  that  higher  standard,  one  not  expected 
of  all  Jews  ?  Buchler  and  Jewish  scholars  generally  deny  it,  on 
the  ground  that  the  Talmud  makes  no  reference  to  such  a  stage  or 
phase  of  Pharisaism.  But  the  argument  from  silence  is  precarious, 
especially  in  face  of  the  analogy  of  the  current  Essene  view  of  the 
highest  type  of  ritual  purity  as  binding  on  all  Jews,  as  God  s 
priestly  People,  and  of  the  specially  sacred  or  quasi-sacrificial 
nature  of  food  consecrated  with  prayer  (according  to  Jewish 
custom),  of  which  they  partook  only  after  bathing  (cf.  v.  4).  It  is 
quite  possible,  then,  that  a  similar  feeling  was  strong  in  Pharisaism 
at  the  pL-riod  in  question,  and  led  to  ritual  demands  upon  the  pious 
generally,  and  not  only  on  priests,  which  were  afterwards  silently 
dropped  as  impracticable.  Mark  explains  the  technical  Jewish 
term  '  common'  for  the  sake  of  his  Gentile  readers.  What  is  in 
view  is  traditional  ceremonial  ablution,  to  which  great  importance 
was  attached  in  certain  Jewish  circles. 

3.  the  Pharisees,  ^and  all  the  Jews""  :  i.  e.  the  most  rigid  cere- 
monialists,  and  the  Jews  generally.  But  the  latter  statement  is 
probably  incorrect,  being  contrary  to  what  follows  as  to  the  special 
practice  of  the  traditionalists  as  such  and  also  to  other  Jewish 
evidence  on  the  point.  The  disciples  did  only  as  the  mass  of  the 
common  people  did  in  the  matter.  This  is  a  mistake  of  the  kind 
which  a  Jew  like  Mark  would  not  have  made.  Moreover  the  very 
phrase  is' itself  suspicious.  For  this  is  the  only  instance  in  which 
the  term  '  the  Jews  '  is  used  in  Mark  by  itself,  as  distinct  from 
Pilate's  designation  of  Jesus  as  '  the  King  of  the  Jews.'  In  John's 
Gospel  it  has  the  definite  sense  of  Jews  as  opposed  to  Christians, 
and,  in  particular,  the  scribes,  priests,  members  of  the  council,  and 
official  classes  generally,  as  representatives  of  the  absolute  hostility 
of  the  nation  to  Christ  and  his  followers.  It  is  possible  that  it  has 
something  approaching  that  sense  here.  On  the  whole,  then,  the 
words  'and  all  the  Jews'  are  probably  an  addition  by  some  early 
copyist  or  editor  of  Mark's  Gospel  (the  Sinaitic  Syriac  carries  this 
yet  further  by  reading  '  all  the  Jews  and  the  Pharisees,'  identify- 
ing the  two  still  further).  This  view  seems  better  than  that  which 
assigns  the  whole  parenthetic  explanation  in  vv.  3-4  to  such 
a  source  :  cf.  note  below,  on  '  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.' 
diligently:   better  'scrupulously.'      The  word  is  a  difficult 


ST.  UARK  7.  3.     Mk  213 

one,  meaning  literally  '  with  the  fist.'  The  idea  is  that  they  per- 
formed the  ceremonial  act  scrupulously.  But  how?  Jewish 
ritual  ablution,  according  to  Edersheim  [Li/e  and  Tunes  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  ii.  ii),  which  was  primarily  by  affusion  or  pouring 
over  the  hands  when  elevated,  so  that  the  water  ran  down  at  the 
wrist,  was  completed  by  each  hand  being  rubbed  with  the  other 
closed  hand  (or  fist),  provided  the  hand  that  rubbed  had  been 
affused.  It  was  probably  the  latter  stage  of  this  very  thorough 
process,  to  guard  against  any  possible  defilement  left  adhering 
anywhere  to  the  wetted  hands,  that  gave  rise  to  the  phrase  '  to 
wash  with  clenched  hand.'  This  is  perhaps  borne  out  by  a 
marginal  note  of  the  Philoxenian  Syriac  (probably  already  in  its 
Greek  original,  'i.e.  rinsing  with  water  their  fingers.'  Such 
careful  lustration  was  originally  confined  to  the  priests  and  their 
households,  who  ate  'holy  '  or  sacrificial  food  (from  the  Temple): 
but  the  Pharisees  tended  to  assimilate  the  '  cleanness '  of  the  true 
Jews  to  that  of  the  priests,  as  tlie  type  of  such  '  purity.'  Hence 
the  rule  here  described,  though  it  is  not  referred  to  in  the  Talmud 
as  observed  by  Pharisees  at  the  later  date  represented  by  that 
great  collection  of  traditions.  The  reading  'oft'  is  probably  an 
easier  phrase  borrowed  from  Luke  v.  33,  to  replace  the  more 
difficult  one  :  the  words  look  and  sound  rather  alike. 

holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders  :  that  is,  the  rules  which 
had  come  down  from  the  scribes  of  earlier  times.  The  oral  Law, 
like  the  written,  was  held  to  have  been  faithfully  transmitted 
through  subsequent  generations.  '  Moses,'  it  was  said  (Sayings  0/ 
the  Jewish  Fathers,  i.  i),  '  received  the  Torah  from  Sinai,  and 
delivered  it  to  Joshua,  and  Joshua  to  the  Elders,  and  the  Elders  to 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Prophets  to  the  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue '  (see  Streane's  edition  of  the  tract  Cliagigah,  p.  vi).  'The 
oral  Law  had  to  answer  all  questions  on  which  the  written  Law 
was  silent  ...  It  had  to  adjust  the  written  Law  to  the  practical 
necessities  of  the  time  ' — as  viewed  by  the  Scribes  (ib.,  p.  150). 
The  oral  tradition  which  dealt  with  the  Torah  or  Mosaic  legislation 
was  called  Halachah,  consisting  of  Rabbinic  rules  or  decisions, 
along  with  the  discussions  through  w-hich  they  were  reached.  It 
is  this  Halachic  tradition  that  is  here  described  as  '  the  tradition 
of  the  elders,'  and  which  had  recentl3'  been  made  more  definite 
on  the  very  point  here  raised  (Edersheim,  ii.  13  f.).  In  the  Gospels 
the  word  '  tradition  '  occurs  only  here  and  in  the  parallel  passage 
in  Matthew:  cf.  'the  traditions  of  my  fathers'  of  which  Paul 
wrote  (Gal.  i.  14).  'The  "Oral  Law"  codified  later  on  in  the 
Mishna  was  then  in  its  formative  stage '  (Montcfiore).  By  this 
reference  to  '  the  tradition  of  the  Eiders,'  as  the  standard  of 
Pharisaic  piety,  the  explanatory  parenthesis  hints  at  and  leads  up 
to  the  essential  issue  underlying  the  special  point  raised  by  Jesus' 
critics,  to  which  he  himself  at  once  directs  attention  in  his  reply. 


214  ST.  MARK   7.  4,  5.     Mk  X^^ 

4  of  the  elders  :  and  7v/ien  they  come  from  the  marketplace, 
except  they  ^  wash  themselves,  they  eat  not :  and  many 
other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  ^' washings  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brasen  vessels  c. 

i  [XMk]  And  the  Pharisees  and  the  scribes  ask  him,  Why 

*  The  two  oldest  MSS.  read  sprinkle,  probably  wrongly. 

''  Gr.  baptizings 

"  Many  ancient  authorities  add  and  couches. 


4.  except  they  wash  themselves :  rather,  '  except  they  dip ' 
or  bathe.  The  word  is  'baptize,'  a  term  always  conveying  in 
the  N.  T.  the  idea  of  dipping  or  immersion.  But  it  is  most  un- 
likely that  a  bath  was  usual  when  the  ordinary  Jew  came  from  the 
'market-place'  (where  the  number  and  the  mi,\ture  of  people,  in- 
cluding Gentiles,  made  the  risk  of  defilement  relatively  great). 
Hence  probably  the  alternative  reading  'sprinkle  themselves,' 
meant  to  soften  the  difficulty.  But  the  real  root  of  the  trouble  lies 
in  the  words  '  and  all  the  Jews  '  in  verse  3,  which  we  have  seen 
reason  to  judge  a  later  gloss.  When  this  is  removed,  there  is 
little  or  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  strict  Pharisees  in  Galilee 
tried  to  meet  the  risks  of  defilement  during  intercourse  with 
Gentiles  in  the  public  market  by  such  a  drastic  precaution  as  a 
ritual  bath  before  eating  (?cf  Luke  xi.  38).  Dr.  Biichler  (as  above, 
p  39^1  cites  evidence  for  this  in  the  case  of  priestly  'Aaronites 
practising  the  strict  rules  of  Levitical  purification  ;  '  and,  as  has 
been  argued  above,  there  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt  that  such  an 
ideal  was  in  Jesus'  da3' extended  by  a  school  of  Pharisees  to  them- 
selves, even  though  laymen.  This  explanation  is  more  natural 
than  that  of  the  Christian  Talmudic  scholar  John  Lightfoot,  who 
suggested  that  the  words  '  their  hands  '  should  be  understood  after 
'  immerse,'  seeing  that  it  had  been  used  just  above  after  '  wash  ;' 
for  if  so,  the  difference  between  the  two  cases  vanishes. 

washing's  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brasen  vessels:  i.  e.  in 
order  to  safeguard  them  for  use  in  eating  and  drinking,  cf.  Matt, 
xxiii.  25  f  Drinking  cups,  '  pitchers'  (Jit.  the  Latin  sextarius  =  a 
pint,  Grascized),  and  metal  vessels  (e.  g.  for  cooking  or  holding 
food),  as  liable  to  become  ritnally  'unclean.'  and  so  to  communi- 
cate this  state  to  their  contents,  and  these  in  turn  to  those  eating 
and  drinking  them,  stood  in  need  of  ritual  washings.  The  inferior 
reading  'and  couches,'  added  at  the  end  of  the  list,  shews  a 
tendency  to  heighten  the  anti-Jewish  tone  of  this  passage,  cf.  3,  6. 

5.  And  :   in  the  sense  of  '  so,'  resuming  the  thread  broken  by 
the  explanatory-  parenthesis  for  Gentile  readers. 


ST.  MARK  1.6.     XMk  215 

walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to  the  tradition  of  the 
elders,  but  eat  their  bread  with  ■'  defiled  hands  ?     And  6 
he  said  unto  them,  A\'ell  did  Isaiah   prophesy  of  you 
hypocrites,  as  it  is  written, 

*  Or,  common 

•walk:  a  Jewish  technical  \ise  of  this  verb  (in  Heb.  Iialak), 
denoting  a  man's  conduct.  The  standard  of  tliat  'ivalk^  was 
called  by  the  Scribes  lialacliali,  i.e.  the  rule  for  man's  walk  ac- 
cording to  the  Law,  as  handed  down  by  tradition  (see  note  on 
verse  3). 

according  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  This  wa^'  of 
putting  the  question  about '  eating  with  common  hands  '  brings  out 
the  underl^'ing  issue,  to  which  Jesus  at  once  turns. 

6-8.  Jesus  sees  the  full  bearing  of  their  test  question,  and 
answers  as  one  who  knows  that  there  is  nothing  for  it  now,  at 
this  stage,  but  to  join  issue  openly  and  decisively ;  though  it  is 
quite  likely  that  the  actual  phrasing  of  his  reply  has  been  shar- 
pened by  the  insertion  of  '  113'pocrites,'  eitiier  in  tradition  or  in 
our  MSS.  of  Mark  (see  note  on  the  word).  lie  does  not  argue 
about  the  particular  usage,  but  turns  attention  full  on  the  false 
emphasis  of  his  critics. 

6.  Well :  lit. '  finely,"  here  ^  aptly  :  below  (in  verse  9)  it  is  used 
ironically. 

hypocrites :  the  only  occurrence  of  this  word  in  Mark,  which 
rather  favours  its  being  a  gloss(e.g.  under  the  influence  of  Matthew, 
which  has  it  fifteen  times).  It  means  primarily  an  actor,  and  so 
metaphorically  one  who  '  acts  a  part '  by  way  of  pretence,  to  cover 
some  lack  of  reality  or  sincerity  in  life  (Matt.  vii.  5  ;  Luke  vi.  42, 
xii.  56).  '  In  the  Psalms  of  Solotiton  "  hypocrisy  ''  is  a  charge  con- 
stantly brought  against  tlie  Sadducees  by  the  Pharisaic  author' 
(Swete),  who  contrasts  'those  living  in  hypocrisy'  with  tlie 
'pious'  or  'dutiful'  worshippers  of  God.  In  tliis  sense  of  reli- 
gious unreality  it  is  applied  by  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  (especially  in 
Matthew,  see  vi.  2,  5,  16,  xxii.  18,  xxiii.  12  ff.,  xxiv.  51  ;  Luke  xiii. 
17)  to  the  Pharisees,  in  virtue  of  the  conscious  and  unconscious 
unreality  or  inconsistency  into  which  the  ceremonial,  and  there- 
fore external,  emphasis  of  this  type  of  piety  easily  led  them.  In 
the  early  sub-Ap^stoIic  writing  called  The  Teaching  0/  the  Apostles 
{c.  75-100  A.  D.  1.  which  represents  the  generation  after  Mark's, 
strict  or  Pharisaic  Jews  as  such  seem  to  be  called  '  the  hypo- 
crites,' in  relation  particularly  to  their  fasts  and  prayers  (viii.  1,2). 
This  technical  use  of  the  phrase,  with  the  definite  article,  suggests 
that  the  epithet,  as  iiere  addressed  to  his  critics,  was  not  actually 
used  on  this  occasion  by  Jesus,  but  slipped  into  the  tradition  of 


2i6  ST.  MARK  7.  7-9.     XMk 

This  people  honoureth  me  with  their  lips, 
But  their  heart  is  far  from  me. 

7  But  in  vain  do  they  worship  me, 

Teaching  as  their  doctrines  the  precepts  of  men. 

8  Ye  leave  the  commandment  of  God,  and  hold  fast  the 

9  tradition  of  men.     And  he  said  unto  them.  Full  well  do 

the  story  as  told  by  men  who  were  wont  thus  to  characterize  the 
type  in  question  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  51,  the  only  other  passage  in  the 
Gospels  where  '  the  hypocrites  '  occurs,  where  also  it  may  be  due 
to  the  same  cause,  unless  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  '  godless,'  as 
in  Job  xxxiv.  30,  xxxvi.  13,  cf.  xx.  5V  It  is  to  be  observed,  too, 
that  in  Matthew's  account  the  epithet  comes  after  the  facts  which 
seem  to  warrant  this  description  of  those  addressed,  whereas  in 
Mark  it  precedes  the  explanation,  which  is  harsh  and  points  to  its 
having  been  added  later,  possibly  as  suggested  by  the  parallel  in 
Matthew  (as  elsewhere,  e.  g.  the  first  quotation  in  i.  2,  and  many 
minor  details  found  only  in  the  inferior  manuscripts). 

This  people  honoureth  me  with  their  lips.  The  quotation 
is  from  Isa.  xxix.  13.  It  differs  somewhat  from  the  form  in  the 
O.  T.,  whether  in  Hebrew  or  Greek.  It  is  probably  a  freely  para- 
phrased or  adapted  form,  current  in  oral  use.  Such  tradition- 
bound  Scribes  of  Christ's  day  were  like  the  Jews  of  Isaiah's  time. 
In  both  cases  the  human  occupied  the  place  of  the  Divine. 

7.  Teaching'  as  f/ieir  Aoctvines  (the)  precepts  of  men :  rather 
as  A.  V.  '  teaching  for  doctrines  (of  God)  commandments  of  men.' 
This  is  immediately  explained,  in  its  actual  application,  by  the 
words  which  follow  in  verses  8,  9.  They  put,  in  effect,  the  lower 
in  the  place  of  the  higher. 

8.  Ye  leave  the  commandment  of  God.  The  traditional  rules 
which  in  most  cases  went  far  beyond  anything  contained  in  the 
written  Law  of  Moses,  came  to  be  treated  as  of  more  importance 
than  the  latter,  even  in  cases  where  its  spirit  or  teaching  as  a 
whole  had  plainly  to  be  ignored.  In  the  tractate  Safthedrin,  xi.  3, 
we  even  read  'it  is  more  culpable  to  teach  contrary  to  the  precepts 
of  the  scribes  than  contrary  to  the  Torah  itself  (cf.  Chagigah, 
i.  7)  :  so  Rabbi  Jochanan  said,  '  words  of  scribes  (Sopheriin)  .  .  . 
are  more  beloved  than  words  of  Torah.'  The  scribes  sought  to 
justify  this  preference  by  strained  interpretations  of  such  passages 
as  Deut.  iv.  14,  xvii.  10.  Jesus'  criticism  here  is  on  the  lines  of 
that  in  Matt,  xxiii.  23,  '  But  these  (less  weighty  precepts)  ye 
ought  to  have  done,  and  not  have  left  the  other("weightier  matters") 
undone.' 

9-13.   Counter-Criticism  of  Pharisaic  pirty. 

9.  And  he  said  unto  them :  lit.  '  proceeded  to  say '  (imperfect 


ST.  MARK  7.  lo,  II.     XMk  217 

ye  reject  the  commandment  of  God,  that  ye  may  keep 
your  tradition.     For  Moses  said,  Honour  thy  father  and  10 
thy  mother ;   and,  He  that  speaketh  evil   of  father  or 
mother,  let  him  -"^die  the  death  :   but  ye  say,  If  a  man  11 

*  Or,  surely  die 


tense).  '  When  Christ  .  .  .,  next,  proceeded  to  shew  that  in  a  very 
important  point— nay,  in  "many  such  like  things  "• — the  Halachali 
was  utterly  incompatible  with  Scripture,  that  indeed  they  made 
"void  the  Word  of  God"  by  their  traditions  which  they  had  re- 
ceived, He  dealt  the  heaviest  blow  to  traditionalism.  Rabbinism 
stood  self-condemned  :  on  its  own  shewing,  it  was  to  be  rejected  ' 
(Edersheim).     See  next  note. 

Full  well :  lit.  '  finely,'  in  an  ironical  sense.  The  justice  of 
this  irony  becomes  the  more  apparent  when  it  is  remembered  that 
'  it  was  an  admitted  Rabbinic  principle  [as  formulated  in  the  Tal- 
mud] that,  while  the  ordinances  of  Scripture  required  no  confir- 
mation, those  of  the  Scribes  needed  such,  and  that  no  Halachah 
(traditional  law)  might  contradict  Scripture'  (Edersheim,  /.  c,  p. 17). 
'The  oral  law  was  professedly  a  "fence"  [or  safeguard]  to  the 
written  Law :  in  practice  it  took  its  place  and  even  reversed  its 
decisions '  (Swete),  i.  e.  when  the  two  were  in  competition—  espe- 
cially a  moral  principle  of  the  one  with  a  ritual  interest  of  the 
other — as  in  the  case  Jesus  cites.  See  C.  Taylor,  Saying  of  the 
Jewish  Fathers,  p.  105  ff.,  for  proof  of  Pharisaic  preference  of  'the 
tradition  of  the  Elders.' 

10.  Tor,  &c.  The  instance  chosen  is  crucial,  as  bringing  out 
the  inconsistency  involved  in  the  whole  Pharisaic  emphasis,  shewn 
in  their  criticism,  which  also  betrayed  their  chief  interest  as  lying 
in  the  non-ethical  side  of  religion.  For  Jesus  seizes  on  what  was 
not  only  a  part  of  the  Decalogue  but  also  a  principle  on  which  the 
Pharisees  in  other  connexions  laid  great  stress — the  honour  due 
to  parents -and  shews  how  they  played  fast  and  loose  with  the 
chiefest  of  ethical  principles  under  the  perverting  influence  of 
their  professional  and  formal  bias  in  things  religious.  Such  prac- 
tical inconsistency  made  void  their  professed  zeal  for  honour  to 
parents,  a  moral  principle  of  the  first  rank,  and  reduced  their 
'  honouring'  of  God  in  this  crucial  case  to  mere  words,  and  them- 
selves to  '  play-actors  '  in  the  matter. 

Moses  said:  see  Exod.  xx.  12  (Deut.  v.  16),  xxi.  17. 

die  the  death :  that  is  '  surely  die,'  as  in  the  margin.  The 
quotation,  by  citing  the  penalty  (quite  in  Jewish  fashion),  expresses 
the  paramount  value  which  the  Law  put  upon  that  duty  of  children 
to  parents  which  was  so  lightly  evaded. 


2i8  ST.  MARK  7.  u.     X^k 

shall  say  to  his  father  or  his  mother,  That  wherewith 
thou  mightest  have  been  profited  by  me  is  Corban,  that 


11    Corban :  a  Hebrew  word  meaning  '  sacrifice,'  a  consecrated 
eift    "  It  is  explained,  for  the  sake  of  non-Jewish  readers,  to  mean 
something  '  given '—' dedicated '   as   if   for   God's  special  use  in 
keeping  with  Dent,  xxiii.  21-23.    Now  the  Law  did  not  give  even 
true  sacred  offerings,  such  as  those  meant  in  Deut.  xxiii,  any  pre- 
cedence over  moral  duties  ;  on  the  contrary  they  are  not  referred 
to  in  the  Decalogue,  where  honour  to  parents  is  laid  down   as 
a  primary  '  commandment  of  God.'     But  the  developments  o   the 
scribal  or  traditional  law  had  so  perverted  moral  feehngthal  1  had 
come  to  be  a  recognized  thing  that  to  declare  any  possession  to  be 
Corban    i  e.    'dedicated'  by  vow  to  some  special  purpose,   even 
though  a  selfish  one,  left  one  free  to  refuse-nay,  made  it  wrong 
not  to  refuse-to  use  it  for  the  help  even  of  a  parent.^    The  words 
'  to  God'  inserted  in  the  R.  V.  are  rather  misleadmg,  as  suggest- 
ing that  an  actual  dedication  to  God's  service,  as  contemplated  in 
Deut  xxiii,  had  taken  or  was  about  to  take  place.    But  Edersheim, 
a  high  authority  in  such  matters,  declares  that   'there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  words  of  Christ  referred  to  such  vows  of  personal 
obligation  '  as  the  technical  Rabbinic  kmd  just  alluded  to  {op.  at., 
ii   20^      The  very  formula  used  in  such  vows  of  alienation,  viz. 
'  'Corban  ("  reserved  ")  that  by  which  thou  mightest  be  profited  by 

""^13  ^miking  void :  a  strong  word,  to  mvalidaie,  abrogate,  make 
a  dead  letter.  It  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  only  here  and  in  Gal.  m.  15,  i?- 
Montefiore  {The  Synoptic  Gospels,  i.  .64  ff.\  from  the  standpdnt 
of  a  modern  Jew,  questions  the  correctness  of  the  cnt.cism  m  th  s 
and  the  preceding  verses.  He  says  that  (a) 'the  rule  which  Jesus 
here  attributes  to  tradition  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  law  as 
laid  down  in  the  Mishnah  [at  the  end  of  the  second  century  a.  d.J, 
and  as  commented  on  by  the  Talmud  ; 'and  (b)  'the  asser -on 
that  the   Pharisees  violated  the   Law  ol  God  .  .  .  in  "'aintain mg 

their  own  rules,  is  not  proved  by  the  i"^'^"<^«.  ^"°^^^.  f  "'„ 
contrary,  the  instance  fails  just  at  the  crucial  point'  What  then, 
was  the"^  ituation?  'Corban  '  in  Rabbinic  authont.es,  says  Monte^ 
fiore,  is  a  word  '  used  as  a  mere  oath,'  '  the  oath  used  on  the 
occasion  of  a  particular  kind  of  vow,'  which  was  then  treated  hke 
'Corban  ; '  and  in  some  cases  it  meant  simply  '  My  property  is 

T^eVshTmT^A Ti^,  ii.  21)  cites  a  case,  from  the  Mishnah  treatise 
on  '  Vows  '  {Nedarim,  v.),  of  a  son's  trying  to  evade  the  effect  of  such 
a  vow  by  indirect  action,  in  order  to  allow  his  father  to  share  .n  his 
marriage  feast,  and  this  being  disallowed-save  only  in  case  the 
father  were  starving. 


ST.  MARK  7.  II.     XMk  219 

dedicated  so  far  as  you  are  concerned.''  But  such  a  merely  negative 
form  of  'gift '  vow  is  one  quite  alien  to  the  Scriptural  or  proper 
sense  of  '  Corban '  in  Deut.  xxiii.  21-23,  as  an  oflering  to  God's 
service  of  that  which  one  was  free  by  God's  Law  so  to  offer  ; 
whereas  Num.  xxx.  gives  cases  where,  owing  to  the  rights  of 
others,  even  such  'Corban'  was  not  valid.  So  far,  then,  Jesus' 
criticism  of  '  the  tradition  of  the  elders,'  with  its  special  kind  of 
oath  and  formula  of  Corban  would  be  quite  pertinent.  But,  argues 
Montefiore,  it  was  only  when  a  son  wished  to  be  absolved  from  any 
rash  or  passionate  vow  {of  this  lower  soi't)  to  a  father's  disadvan- 
tage, that  the  place  of  the  Scribes  would  come  in.  For  ^  the 
amiullvjg,  not  the  maintenance  of  vows,  ^  was  the  work  of  tradition.^ 
Surely,  however,  this  misses  Jesus'  real  meaning.  What  he  says 
is  that  the  scribes  support  the  son  in  making  (perhaps  deliberately) 
or  adhering  to  a  Corban  vow  of  any  kind,  to  the  disabling  of  him- 
self to  perform  the  more  essentially  Divine  duty  to  a  parent,  the 
highest  form  of  the  moral  law  of  '  mercy  '  and  not 'sacrifice' or 
ritual  '  offering  '  {Corban).  Thus  they  virtually  set  aside  the  law 
of  God  which  makes  pietas,  filial  feeling,  the  truer  form  of  'piety' 
towards  the  God  of  the  Decalogue,  when  there  is  a  competition 
between  this  and  a  formal  'dedication  '  in  some  other  way  of  the 
material  means  at  a  son's  disposal  for  one,  but  not  both,  of  these 
objects. 

To  this  Montefiore  would  rejoin  that  this  was  in  fact  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Rabbinic  tract  Nedarhn  (viii.  i),  viz.  'where  the  vow 
has  to  do  with  the  mans  father  or  mother,  there  the  Rabbis  agree 
with  Rabbi  Eliezer  that  the  door  [of  annulment  of  the  vow  J  is 
opened  to  him  on  account  of  the  honour  of  father  and  mother.' 
'  Thus,'  he  comments, '  we  have  the  further  difficulty  that  Jesus  and 
the  Rabbis  do  not  here  differ  :  they  agree.'  But  this  difficulty 
exists  only  for  those  who  like  Montefiore  habitually  assume  that 
the  witness  of  the  Mishnah,  the  written  form  of  which  dates  from 
a  century  and  a  half  after  Jesus'  ministry,  is  better  evidence  to  the 
prevalent  thought  and  usage  of  Pharisaism  in  Jesus'  daj'  than  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  themselves.  The  fact  is  that  it  is  most  probable 
that  the  balance  of  Rabbinic  thought  changed  on  this  (and  other 
matters)  as  between  the  two  periods  in  question.  For,  as  Montefiore 
adds,  '  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  so  vast  an  innovation  as  the 

^  The  subject  of  '  vows  '  as  conditional  (herein  differing  from 
'  oaths,'  or  again  from  sacred  *  bans '  devoting  things  to  God  in 
various  senses),  and  so  subject  to  an  annulling  power  among  men,  is 
an  interesting  one  (see  Edersheim,  op.  cit.,  ii.  20 f.)  and  bears  on  our 
subject  incidentally.  Thus  '  vows  which  circumstances  rendered 
impossible  were  declared  null.'  Again  it  is  admitted  in  Chagignh 
i.  8,  that  the  Rabbinic  laws  about  the  absolving  from  vows  hung,  as 
it  were,  '  in  the  air '  because  not  resting  on  Scripture. 


2  20  ST.  MARK  7.  12.     XMk 

12  is  to  say,  Given  to  God;  ye  no  longer  suffer  him  to  do 

annulment  of  vows  [whatever  their  moral  quality]  met  with  oppo- 
sition at  ffrst.  We  should  thus  have  here  an  instance,  not  of 
general  antagonism  between  Jesus  and  the  Pharisaic  law,  but  of 
the  participation  of  Jesus  in  the  discussion  of  the  application  of  the 
law  to  life.  Sometimes  the  Rabbinic  opinion  finally  formed  itself 
(as  here)  on  the  side  which  Jesus  approved  :  sometimes  it  took 
a  turn  in  a  direction  different  from  the  opinion  of  Jesus'  (op.  cit.^ 
p.  166). 

These  words  of  Montefiore  deserve  quotation  for  more  than  the 
particular  point  in  question ;  for  the  possibilities  suggested  meet 
most  of  the  differences  between  the  views  of  Jewish  and  Christian 
scholars  as  to  the  comparative  value  of  the  Gospels  and  the  later 
Rabbinic  witnesses  where  they  disagree.  Onl3'  it  is  well  to 
remember  that  'the  participation  of  Jesus  in  the  discussion  of  the 
application  of  the  Law  to  life  '  was  that  of  a  '  prophet  '  and  pioneer, 
rather  than  of  a  minority  Rabbi.  But  when  Montefiore  goes  on  to 
say  that  '  In  any  case  the  passage  cannot  be  used  to  prove  the 
dangers  and  moral  evils  of  legalism,'  as  a  mode  of  thought  faithful 
to  the  letter  rather  than  the  spirit  of  a  bod}'  of  Law,  one  can 
hardly  follow  him  :  for  it  in  fact  suggests  that  the  view  that  even 
when  '  Corban  '  did  affect  parents,  and  so  clash  with  the  honour 
to  these  enjoined  by  the  Law,  it  must  nevertheless  be  upheld,  zfa5 
taught  at  an  earlier  stage  by  some  Rabbi,  and  probabl}'  (in  the 
light  of  the  Gospels)  by  most. 

How  precarious  the  older  Rabbinism,  in  certain  of  its  moods, 
itself  felt  '  the  tradition  of  the  Elders  '  to  be,  is  shewn  by  a  re- 
markable Mishnah  in  Chagigah  li.  8),  a  tractate  on  voluntary 
festive  offerings.  '  The  rules  concerning  the  dissolving  of  vows 
fly  about  in  the  air,  and  there  is  nothing  upon  which  they  can  rest 
The  Halachoth  (legal  rules)  concerning  Sabbath,  Chagigoth,  and 
trespasses  (=  appropriation  of  holy  things  to  secular  uses),  behold 
they  are  as  mountains  suspended  by  a  hair;  forlo!  the  Bible  teach- 
ing is  little  and  the  Halachoth  are  manifold.  The  legal  decisions  (\.  e. 
of  courts  dealing  with  ordinary  offences)  and  the  Temple  services, 
the  things  clean  and  unclean,  and  cases  of  unlawful  unions  (be- 
tween man  and  woman),  have  something  on  which  they  may  rest, 
and  these  are  the  principal  things  of  the  Law '  (Streane's  transla- 
tion). This  is  instructive  for  another  tendency  of  Pharisaic 
Judaism,  as  distinct  from  the  extravagant  mood  which  seems  to 
have  prevailed  in  Jesus'  day.  And  one  notes  that,  while  it  shews 
how  central  to  the  Pharisaic  system  as  such  was  the  question  of 
legal  '  uncleanness  '  (the  issue  on  which  it  challenged  Jesus),  it 
shews  also  how  much  rigiit  Jesus  had  to  challenge  the  right  of 
current  Pharisaism  to  be  an  authentic  champion  of  true  Hebrew 


ST.  MARK  7.  t3.     XMk  221 

aught  for  his  father  or  his  mother;   making  void  the  13 

religion,  taking  due  account  of  the  Prophets  (and  Psalms)  as  well 
as  the  Pentateuch. 

As  to  '  the  assertion  that  the  Pharisees  violated  the  Law  of 
God  ...  in  maintaining  their  own  rules,'  there  is,  as  Montefiore 
observes,  no  explicit  law  of  Moses  enjoining  preference  of  the  duty 
to  parents  to  that  contracted  by  a  'Corban  '  vow — in  its  Scriptural 
form,  not  its  later  traditional  development— or  indeed  of  moral  to 
ritual  interests  generally,  if  they  clash.  But  the  whole  spirit  of 
the  Law  as  interpreted  by  the  Prophets  (which  the  Scribes  ac- 
cepted as  Scripture,  and  so  nominally  as  superior  to  '  the  tradition 
of  the  Elders')  assumes  this  as  spiritually  self-evident  and  axio- 
matic. 'I  desire  mercy  and  not  sacrifice'  is  but  one  of  many 
kindred  passages.  It  was  the  practical  evasion,  then,  of  the  higher 
duty  (on  the  plane  of  prophetic  religion,  as  the  Divinely  given 
commentary  on  the  principles  of  the  law  of  Moses)  in  the  interests 
of  the  lower,  even  when  it  rested  only  on  '  the  tradition  of  the 
Elders,'  that  Jesus  taxed  the  scribes  with  condoning.^  Hence 
this  instance  is  very  much  to  the  point. 

14-23.      The  true  principle  of  religious  Purity. 

'  The  section  beginning  with  verse  14,'  says  Montefiore,  •  is  only 
loosely  connected  with  what  precedes,  and  deals  directly  with  the 
question  of  forbidden  or  ''  unclean"  foods,  and  with  the  true  and 
false  conceptions  of  cleanness  and  uncleanness,'  in  a  religious 
sense.  '  This  question  .  .  .  was  of  far  greater  importance  to 
Mark's  readers  than  the  washing  of  hands.  Had  the  Gentile 
Christians  to  observe  the  Jewish  dietary  laws  ?  Had  he  to  keep 
himself  apart  from  eating  with  unbelievers?  We  know  how 
pressing  and  urgent  this  question  became  [cf.  Peter's  vision  in 
Acts  X.  gS.,  and  its  sequel,  esp.  xi.  sff.].  Mark  can  report  that 
there  was  a  great  saying  of  the  Master's  which  gave  all  Christians 
the  right  liberty  in  these  outward  matters '  (/.  c,  p.  169).  The 
outward  connexion  may  indeed  be  rather  loose  —  'And  he  called 
to  him  again  the  multitude ' — as  though  they  were  standing 
apart  for  the  moment,  in  deference  to  the  dignified  religious 
leaders  who  had  sought  an  interview  with  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth. 
Yet  this  may  in  substance  have  been  the  situation  (see  note  on 
verse  15)  ;  and  in  any  case  the  spiritual  continuit}'  is  the  main 
thing.  This  really  exists,  even  if  the  exact  terms  in  which  the 
great  and  revolutionary  principle  of  spiritual  religion — as  distinct 
from  Pharisaic  Judaism — is  stated,  in  verse  15,  be  not  recognized  as 

*  Mt  is  expressly  stated,'  says  Edersheim  {op.  cit.,  ii.  21,  citing 
Nedarim,  ii.  2),  that  a  Corban  vow  '  would  be  binding  even  if  what 
was  vowed  involved  a  breach  of  the  Law.' 


222  ST.  MARK  7.  14,  15.     XMk 

word  of  God  by  your  tradition,  which  ye  have  deUvered : 

14  and  many  such  like  things  ye  do.     And  he  called  to  him 
the  multitude  again,  and  said  unto  them,  Hear  me  all  of 

15  you,  and  understand:  there  is  nothing  from  without  the 


applying  to  the  original  issue  raised  by  the  Scribes  under  the  form 
ot  'cleansing'  by  religious  washing  before  food.  But  when  due 
attention  is  pai<l  to  the  point  involved  in  the  words  italicized,  the 
real  identity  of  the  issue  becomes  clear,  viz.  the  abiding  one  be- 
tween the  ritual  or  external  and  the  spiritual  or  inner  sides  of 
religion.  In  so  putting  the  matter,  we  have  already  suggested  the 
true  relation  between  what  precedes  and  what  follows  verse  14. 
Jesus  has  finished  off  the  discussion  as  a  defence  of  the  practice  of 
his  disciples,  as  not  inconsistent  with  loyalty  to  God's  Law,  in  the 
form  of  counter-criticism  of  Pharisaic  practice  as  a  danger  rather 
than  a  safeguard  to  real  obedience  to  that  Law.  Now  he  passes 
to  t\\^  positive  theoretic  justification  of  the  disciples'  practice  on  the 
ground  of  the  very  nature  of  religion,  as  determined  by  the  '  inner ' 
or  spiritual  state  of  the  man,  not  by  any  outer  and  material  things 
which  affect  his  body,  even  by  entering  into  it  for  the  purposes  of 
his  natural  life  (and  not  only  by  contact  with  his  hands,  which  in 
turn  convey  such  nourishment  into  the  body— the  issue  behind 
legal  washings  of  hands  before  food,  which  started  the  whole  dis- 
cussion). ... 

14.  called  to  Mm  the  multitude  again :  cf.  vm.  34.  1  ne 
people  seem,  therefore,  to  have  been  apart  during  the  special 
interview  just  narrated.  They  are  recalled  in  order  to  hear 
a  declaration  of  principle  where  all  required  instruction,  one  going 
to  the  root  of  all  questions  of  '  clean  '  and  '  unclean.' 

15.  nothing  from  without  the  man,  .  .  .  can  defile  him.  It 
is  essentially  the  same  issue  as  that  already  dealt  with  in  2-5,  viz. 
the  relation  of  the  external  or  physical  to  the  internal  or  spiritual 
in  religion.  Verses  2-5  bear  on  the  notion  that  ceremonially  un- 
purified  hands  can  religiously  defile  a  man's  food,  and  so  the  man 
himself:  this  verse  denies  such  a  view  and  sets  up  the  converse 
principle  that  only  what  proceeds  from  within  the  real  man,  the 
soul,  can  defile  him.  Compare  another  wording  of  the  principle 
in  Luke  xi.  39 f.  and  the  summing  up  in  Matt.  xv.  20  :  '  These  (evil 
thoughts)  are  the  things  which  defile  the  man  :  but  to  eat  with 
unwashen  hands  defileth  not  the  man.'  Jesus  takes  his  hearers 
beyond  all  ceremonial  conditions  to  moral  verities,  and  from  the 
outward  to  the  inward.  He  enunciates  a  general  principle  which 
struck  at  the  heart  of  all  such  prescriptions,  not  only  of  the  un- 
written Rabbinic  law,  but  also  of  the  whole  Levitical  system  of 
distinctions  between  things  clean  and  things  unclean  in  themselves 


ST.  MARK  7.  17-19.     XMk  223 

man,  that  going  into  him  can  defile  him  :  but  the  things 
which  proceed  out  of  the  man  are  those  that  defile  the 
man^     And  when  he  was  entered  into  the  house  from  17 
the  multitude,  his  disciples  asked  of  him  the  parable. 
And  he  saith  unto  them,  Are  ye  so  without  understanding  18 
also?     Perceive  ye  not,  that  whatsoever  from  without 
goeth  into  the  man,  it  cannot  defile  him;  because  it  19 
goeth  not  into  his  heart,  but  into  his  belly,  and  goeth 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  insert  verse  i6  //"  any  man  hath  ears 
to  hear,  let  him  hear. 

(see  note  on  14  ff.  generally).  The  aphorism  implies  that  '  the  real 
man  is  the  spiritual  part,  and  that  defilement  of  the  physical  part 
[granting  that  any  material  thing  could  defile  religiously]  does  not 
extend  to  the  spiritual  part,  which  constitutes  the  real  man.  That 
can  only  be  reached  by  spiritual  things  akin  to  itself  .  .  .  The 
material  cannot  penetrate  the  spiritual  '  (Gould).  '  Not  from 
without  inwards,  but  from  within  outwards:  such  was  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  new  Kingdom,  as  setting  forth  the  Law  in  its  fulness 
and  fulfilling  it'  ^Edersheim,  ii.  22).  Matt.  xv.  12  says  that  Jesus' 
disciples  afterwards  reported  to  their  Master  that  the  Pharisees 
had  been  '  scandalized '  by  this  declaration  :  and  we  can  well 
believe  it. 

Verse  16  of  the  A.  V.,  'If  any  man  have  ears  to  hear,  let  him 
hear,'  an  early  gloss,  is  rightly  omitted  by  the  R.  V. 

17-23.  Jesus  had  stated  the  principle  broadly  to  the  people 
without.  He  states  it  again  and  explains  it  now  to  the  disciples 
at  their  request.  No  doubt  the  imperfect  parallelism  between  the 
physical  things,  'from  without  the  man,  going  into  him,'  and  the 
spiritual  '  things  which  proceed  out  of  the  man,'  helped  to  increase 
the  difficulty  to  their  minds  which  they  express  by  calling  the 
aphorism  a  '  parable  '  or  dark  saying  (in  the  original  sense  of  the 
Heb.  equivalent,  tiiashal).  But  there  vi-as  a  further  and  deeper 
reason  for  their  feeling  it  strange  and  difficult.  The  principle  in- 
volved was  so  revolutionary  in  its  far-reaching  results,  affecting  as 
it  did  implicitly  the  Levilical  legislation  (though  not  in  the  special 
matter  which  had  occasioned  Jesus'  enunciation  of  it,  i.  e.  Rabbinic 
rules  as  to  '  unclean'  food),  that  the  disciples  could  not  conceive 
that  Jesus  meant  all  that  his  words  seemed  to  imply.  Neither  they 
nor  the  Galilaeans  generally  were  ready  for  anything  so  radical  as 
a  revision  of  the  whole  notion  of  ritual  '  uncleanness,'  as  involved 
even  in  the  v^'ritten  Law  of  Moses  (see  further  appended  note 
below\ 


224  ST.  MARK  7.  20,  21.     X^k 

out  into  the  draught?     \This  he  said,  making  all  meats 

20  clean."!     And  he  said,  That  which  proceedeth  out  of  the 

21  man,  that  defileth  the  man.     For  from  within,  out  of 
the  heart  of  men,  a.  evil  thoughts  proceed,  fornications, 

"  Gr.  thoughts  that  are  evil 


19.  This  he  said,  making-  aU  meats  clean.  This,  the  reading 
of  the  R.  v.,  is  the  better  supported  ;  and  it  alone  makes  good 
sense.  The  sentence  thus  becomes  a  note,  originally  added  in  the 
margin  of  a  copy  of  Mark's  Gospel  (,as  the  irregular  grammar 
which  it  makes  in  the  text  suggests)  and  then  becoming  incorpo- 
rated into  the  text  itself  It  explains  that  Jesus,  in  speaking  as  he 
did,  abolished  the  old  Levitical  ideas  of  the  matter,  though  the 
disciples  do  not  discern  it,  and  pronounced  all  meats  to  be  in 
themselves  things  equally  clean.  This  may  well  have  seemed 
Christ's  meaning  to  some  later,  possibly  Gentile,  Christian.  But 
it  is  not  the  immediate  moral  which  Jesus  had  in  view  in  so  speak- 
ing. Edersheim  feels  this,  when  he  says  that  'there  is  strong 
objection  '  to  such  a  rendering  of  the  clause  from  the  standpoint  of 
'Jewish  usus  and  views.'  The  real  aim  of  Jesus'  words,  in  their 
historical  context,  was  to  bring  home  the  quite  subordinate  signi- 
ficance of  the  distinction  of  foods  as  '  clean  '  or  '  unclean,'  com- 
pared with  the  moral  attitude  of  'the  man  of  the  heart'  himself, 
which  alone  could  defile  the  soul.  '  Not  from  without  inwards, 
but  from  within  outwards,'  from  '  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart,'  does  sinful  impurity  or  unholiness  arise  in  God's  sight. 

21.  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men.  Real  uncleanness, 
moral  defilement,  has  its  source  in  the  seat  of  moral  perception 
and  feeling,  the  heart,  which  according  to  Jewish  popular  psy- 
chology was  the  organ  with  which  was  associated  the  higher  life  of 
man   (including  what   our    popular   language    connects    with    the 

brain). 

evil  thoughts :  the  mental  acts,  the  evil  volitions,  that  pre- 
cede and  prompt  sinful  deeds.  Here  we  have  the  general  princi- 
ples ;  and  in  the  terms  which  follow  we  have  the  particulars -the 
many  varied  forms  in  which  '  evil  thoughts  '  take  shape.  With  the 
positive  aspect  of  the  tracing  of  all  sins  to  'the  heart,'  Pharisaism, 
with  its  doctrine  of  the  two  tendencies  working  within  -'  the  good 
heart'  and  'the  evil  heart'  (Yetser  ha-tob  and  Aa-raWnO  doubt 
concurred.  But  the  negative  application  of  it,  to  their  doctrine  of 
religious  '  uncleanness  '  due  to  external  causes,  was  something  new 
and  startling,  too  revolutionary  of  their  whole  mode  of  religious 
thought  to  be  other  than  shocking  or  scandalizing  to  them,  as  sub- 
versive of  their  distinctive  system  of  scrupulous  'separated 
living  or  negative  '  holiness.' 


ST.  MARK  7.  22.     XMk  225 

thefts,  murders,  adulteries,  covetings,  wickednesses,  de-  22 
ceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye,  railing,  pride,   foolish- 

The  plurals  in  the  first  half  of  Mark's  list  of  twelve  forms  of  sin 
denote  different  acts  of  their  several  kinds  of  evil,  but  still  as  acts 
of  will,  just  like  the  vices  in  the  second  half,  which  are  couched  in 
the  singular  number,  expressive  of  permanent  disposition  or 
attitude  of  the  soul,  from  which  kindred  volitions  arise  and  issue 
forth,  like  the  former  ones,  as  embodied  deeds.  The  list  differs 
a  good  deal  in  Mark  and  Matthew  respectively ;  and  this  suggests 
that  they  are  both  amplifications  in  detail  of  Jesus"  own  words, 
which  either  stopped  short  with  the  broad  statement  in  verse  21,  or 
gave  as  illustrations  a  less  exhaustive  series  of  typical  sins  in 
Jewish  life.  Matthew's  list,  which  is  only  half  as  long  as  Mark's, 
is  more  strictly  Jewish  in  nature,  following  closely  the  contents 
and  order  of  the  Decalogue  in  the  Heb.  (and  Cod.  Alex,  of  the 
LXX).  Mark's  order  for  the  same  items — the  first  four  being  found 
in  both — is  more  that  of  their  prevalence  among  non-Jews,  as 
witnessed  to  even  by  the  typical  LXX  order  (Cod.  Bj  in  Exodus  xx. 
13-15,  though  the  LXX  does  not  mention  any  sexual  sin  save 
adultery.  '  It  is  instructive  to  compare  with  botii  the  catalogues 
of  sins  in  Wisdom  xiv.  25  f.,  Rom.  i.  29  ff.,  Gal.  v.  20  f.,  Eph.  iv. 
31,  V.  3  ff.,  Col.  iii.  5  S.^Didache  5,  Hermas,  Maud.  viii.  5  '  (Swete). 
'  Covetings '  in  Mark  clearly  echoes  '  Thou  shalt  not  covet,' 
omitting  '  false  witness,'  which  Matthew  inserts  while  omitting 
covetousness. 

22.  covetings  :  all  forms  of  selfish  grasping,  to  the  detriment 
of  others,  such  as  are  named  in  the  tenth  commandment.  It  is 
mentioned  not  only  along  with  grasping  (i  Cor.  v.  10)  but  also 
with  sins  of  the  flesh  (i  Cor.  v.  11  ;  Eph.  v.  3,  5  ;  Col.  iii   5^ 

wickednesses  :  malicious  purposes  or  acts,  springing  from 
loveless  or  malignant  will.  The  root  idea  is  that  found  in  the 
description  of  Satan  as  'the  wicked  (malignant)  one.' 

deceit:  guile,  lack  of  straightforwardness,  a  Jewish  or 
Oriental  vice,  as  the  next,  '  profligacy,'  was  typical  of  the  Giaeco- 
Rotnan  world. 

lasciviousness:  or  '  profligacj'.'  A  strong  term,  meaning  in 
classical  Greek  insolence,  in  later  Greek  sensuality  '  unabashed  and 
unashamed.'  It  expresses  the  wantonness  that  '  shocks  public 
decency'  (Lightfoot). 

an  evil  eye:  a  maliciously  jealous  temper. 

railing  :  or  slander,  detraction. 

pride.  A  term  common  enough  in  classical  Greek  for  the 
'overweening'  spirit;  but  in  the  N.  T.  found  only  here,  though 
the  corresponding  adjective  occurs  repeatedly  (Luke  i.  51  ;  Rom. 
i,  30  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  2  ;  James  iv.  6  ;  i  Pet.  v.  5  . 

foolishness :  better  '  folly,'  in  the  ethical  sense  proper  to  its 


2  26  ST.  MARK  7.  23.     XMk 

23  ness  :  all  these  evil  things  proceed  from  within,  and  defile 
the  man. 


O.  T.  equivalents,  e.  g.  Ps.  xiv.  i,  and  Proverbs.  The  opposite  of 
'  wisdom  '  (especially  in  Proverbs)  in  the  sense  of  moral  '  thought- 
fulness.'  Not  mere  lack  of  common  sense,  but  moral  senseless- 
ness, 'foolishness  of  moral  practice  '  (Meyer). 

Appended  Note  on  the  Issues  in  Ch.  vii.  i-2j. 

The  root-question  was  that  of  religious  defilement  in  virtue  of 
the  food  taken  into  the  body,  according  as  it  was  forbidden  or 
allowed  by  Divine  precept.  'It  is,'  says  Montefiore  (p.  170), 
'  the  same  question  which  is  at  the  root  of  all  the  dietary  laws  '  of 
Judaism  [and  indeed  of  many  religions,  such  as  Hinduism  to-day], 
'  Eating  a  rabbit  defiles  you  and  makes  you  unclean.  Eating  a 
chicken  (if  a  properly  killed  chicken)  does  not.  According  to  the 
principle  laid  down  by  Jesus,  no  thing  can  make  you  unclean. 
You  can  only  make  yourself  unclean  by  sin.'  Montefiore  goes  on 
to  explain  how  the  notion  of  religious  uncleanness  originally 
arose,  viz.  out  of  modes  of  thought  now  outgrown  by  most 
civilized  peoples.  It  'rested  upon  very  ancient  superstitions, 
which,  again,  themselves  depended  upon  polytheistic  or  "animistic  " 
conceptions  of  yet  greater  antiquity.'  This  was  what  historically 
lay  behind  religious  dietary  laws  everywhere,  though  it  was  of 
course  no  longer  so  to  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  Jesus  spoke. 
To  them  it  was  now  simply  a  matter  of  a  Divine  ordinance,  making 
certain  things  taboo  or  forbidden,  and  so  'unclean  '  and  'defiling' 
to  those  who  came  into  bodily  contact  with  them.  Over  against 
this  '  the  principle  which  Jesus  lays  down  is  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  religions  impurity  in  a  material  sense.  Religious  impurity 
can  only  exist  within  the  moral  and  spiritual  sphere.  A  man  can- 
not be  religiously  defiled  except  by  an  offence  committed  in  tlie 
sphere  of  religion.  Now  to  Jesus  the  sphere  of  religion  was  tlie 
inward  realm  of  the  spirit.  Inward  defilement,  the  defilement  of 
the  heart  by  the  sins  of  the  heart,  is  the  only  possible  religious 
defilement.' 

'Only  that  which  goes  out  of  a  man  can  defile  a  man,  that  is, 
make  him  religiously  unclean.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
Matt.  XV.  II  interprets  the  principle  fairly  correctly.  What  goes 
into  the  man  cannot  defile  himreligiously.  "  Going  into  "  refers  to 
the  mouth,  and  "  going  out  "  has  the  same  main  reference,  lliough 
it  does  not  exclusively  refer  to  the  mouth,  for  a  man's  deeds  as 
well  as  his  words  are  alluded  to.  What  comes  out  of  the  mouth 
comes  from  the  heart,  and  the  heart  is  the  scat  of  religious  unclean- 
ness, as  it  is  the  seat  of  religious  purity.  Things  cannot  be 
religiously  either  clean  or  unclean  :  only  persons.     And  persons 


ST.  MARK  7.  1-23.     XMk  227 

cannot  be  defiled  by  things  :  they  can  only  be  defiled  by  them- 
selves, by  acting  irreligiously  .  .  .  This  principle  seems  pro- 
foundly true.  It  destroys  with  a  prophet's  blow  the  terrible 
incubus  from  which  all  ancient  religions  suffered,  that  certain 
objects  or  physical  states  are  in  themselves  taboo  or  religiously 
unclean  ...  A  mass  of  ritual  superstitions  is  made  superfluous. 
The  world  is  profoundly  indebted  to  Jesus  for  his  liberating  and 
clarifying  words.  They  are  spoken  in  the  very  spirit  of  Amos  and 
Hosea.  The  true  province  of  religion  needed  to  be  defined.  It 
was  made  the  greater  and  the  purer  by  being  limited  to  the  realms 
of  spirit  and  personality.  The  dietary  laws  and  the  laws  of  clean 
and  unclean  have  doubtless  often  led,  as  they  led  in  the  days  of 
Jesus,  to  formalism,  h3'pocrisy,  self-righteousness.  Outward 
"cleanliness  "  can  often  mask  inward  corruption.' 

These  quotations  from  Montefiore,  himself  a  Jew,  are  of  special 
value  as  helping  us  to  realize  the  immense  significance  and  advance 
in  spirituality,  and  therefore  reality',  effected  by  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  on  these  points.  But  need  we  agree  with  him  also,  when 
he  goes  on  as  follows  ?  '  Yet,  though  all  this  be  so,  it  was 
impossible  for  the  Jews  to  accept  the  saying,  nor  can  we  safely 
say  that  Jesus  was  consistent  in  asserting  it.  For  though  the 
occasion  which  (as  Mark  tells  the  story)  drew  it  forth  wras  a 
Rabbinical  law,  though  it  was  only  a  Rabbinical  law  which  the 
disciples  transgressed,  yet  the  great  principle  laid  down  by  Jesus 
runs  directly  counter  to  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  Now  the 
Pentateuch  makes  no  diflference  between  some  laws  and  other 
laws.  It  does  not  say  the  moral  laws  are  divine  and  eternal,  the 
ritual  laws  are  human  and  temporary  :  it  ascribes  the  same  divinity 
and  immutability  to  them  all.  From  the  Pentateuchal  and 
Rabbinic  point  of  view,  the  dietary  laws,  the  laws  about  women, 
the  laws  about  corpses  and  ablutions,  were  as  much  given  by  the 
wise  and  righteous  God  as  were  the  laws  about  honouring  our 
parents  or  loving  our  neighbours.  If  the  one  set  of  laws  is  divine, 
so  is  the  other  set.  It  was  quite  illogical  for  Jesus,  in  one  breath, 
to  appeal  to  the  "  Law  of  God,"  violated  bj^  Rabbinical  enactment, 
and  to  enunciate  a  principle  antagonistic  to  that  Law  in  another.' 

But  was  Jesus  really  inconsistent  in  his  attitude  ?  Not  unless 
he  shared  what  I\Iontefiore  has  just  described  as  '  the  Pentateuchal 
and  Rabbinic  point  of  view.'  What  of  the  Pi  ophetic  ?  "Was  it 
the  same  as  this,  or  was  it  not  rather  that  of  Jesus  ?  And  did  not 
Jesus  view  the  Pentateuch  through  the  light  of  the  prophets,  and 
with  the  modifications  to  its  'point  of  view '  which  that  htglier 
stage  of  GoW s  revelations  to  Israel  warranted  ?  As  Montefiore  has 
said,  Jesus  here  spoke  'in  the  very  spirit  of  Amos  and  Hosea' — 
as,  we  may  add,  he  always  did.  It  was  '  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets'  together,  in  their  common  witness,  the  Law  as  a  whole 
in  the  spirit  rather  than  the  letter  (where  these  clash,  as  they  do 


2  28  ST.  MARK  7.  1-23.     X^k 

inevitably\  that  Jesus  claimed  'not  to  abrogate  but  to  fulfil' 
(Matt.  V.  17).  So  read,  namely  in  its  essential  intention,  as  dis- 
tinct from  its  temporary  form  as  conditioned  by  man's  state  of  need 
at  the  time,  the  Law  (even  in  its  details,  so  Matt.  v.  i8  seems  to 
imply)  had  for  him  abiding  value  until  the  end  of  this  age  or 
dispensation  of  God's  providence,  i.e.  until  the  Kingdom  of  God 
was  actually  come  (cf.  Matt.  xi.  13-15  ;  Luke  xvi.  16).  To  treat 
slightingly,  as  without  any  binding  force  (when  not  hindering 
obedience  to  a  higher  precept),  any  of  the  lesser  (///.  'least') 
injunctions  of  God's  Law,  and  especially  to  teach  others  so  to  do, 
was,  as  it  seems  (Matt.  v.  19),  to  Jesus'  mind  an  erroneous  and 
defective  attitude — one  lacking  in  reverence  for  the  historic  forms 
through  which  God  had  trained  His  people  in  the  past  and  was 
still  training  the  bulk  of  them.  And  to  this  principle  his  own 
conduct  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels  conforms.  Nevertheless  this 
does  not  mean  that  he  viewed,  or  in  case  of  need  would  in  practice 
treat,  all  the  precepts  of  the  written  Law  (witness  his  argument  in 
ii.  23-27)  as  on  the  same  level  of  value  or  authority,  as  Montefiore 
suggests  that  he  ought  in  consistency  to  have  done.  The  '  higher 
criticism  '  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  extends  clearly  beyond  any 
mere  distinction  between  the  written  and  the  oral  Law  in  point  of 
authority.  Not  even  the  written  Law  as  such  had  unconditional  or 
absolute  authority  :  there  was  a  temporary  or  relative  element  in 
what  had  been  '  said  to  them  of  old  time'  even  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Only  the  criticism  was  '  internal '  criticism,  on  the  principle  of 
self-consistency  or  harmony  in  the  '  Law  of  the  Prophets '  as  a 
whole,  the  higher  or  weightier  things  of  the  Law,  such  as  '  judge- 
ment (=  justice)  and  mercy'  determining  the  degree  of  applica- 
tion to  be  given  to  the  lower  or  '  lighter '  precepts  (Matt,  xxiii.  23). 
The  principle  underlying  this  bold  attitude,  super-prophetic  in  its 
conscious  nature  and  the  personal  claim  to  apply  it  in  practice  to 
the  most  sacred  and  Divine  thing  in  Judaism,  the  law  (in  the 
widest  sense,  Tomit,  or  the  revealed  will  of  God),  this  principle  of 
relativity,  due  to  man's  imperfect  state,  is  explicitly  enunciated  in 
Jesus'  treatment  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  to  Divorce  (Mark  x.  5). 
'  For  your  hardness  of  heart  he  (Moses)  wrote  you  this  command- 
ment. But  from  the  beginning  of  Creation'  the  Divine  ideal  and 
purpose  for  man  and  woman  was  other  than  this. 

Therefore  while  '  Jesus  did  not  say  that  the  Pentateuch  was  not 
in  all  its  parts  the  Law  of  God  ; '  while  '  he  did  not  bid  his  disciples 
to  violate  the  ceremonial  law,'  '  did  not  urge  them  to  eat  rabbit 
and  hare '  (forbidden  in  the  Mosaic  Law)  ;  this  does  not  mean  that 
Jesus  was  unconsciously  inconsistent  in  laying  down  a  principle 
which  ran  counter  not  only  to  Rabbinic  dietary  laws  as  to  religious 
uncleanness  (which  no  doubt  went  beyond  the  written  Mosaic  Law 
on  the  point\  but  also  to  any  absolutely  binding  Divine  law  in  the 
sphere  of  material  things,  as  if  these  could  in  t/ientselveshe  defiling 


ST.  MARK  7.  1-23.     XMk  229 

to  the  real  man,  '  the  man  of  the  heart.'  For  that  Jesus  did  '  in 
his  own  mind  separate  the  moral  from  the  ritual  law'  in  point  of 
importance,  yet  wilhout  'enunciating  the  principle  of  such  a 
separation  '  or  teaching  a  '  difference  of  origin '  (such  as  Montefiore 
thinks  involved  in  any  such  separation),  is  in  fact  fairly  clear  from 
the  above  exposition  of  his  attitude  to  the  Law  and  its  various 
elements.  Nor  is  this  at  all  out  of  keeping  with  '  a  few  indications 
that  he  himself  obeyed  and  urged  others  to  obey  the  ritual  laws  of 
the  Pentateuch.'  The  whole  matter  was  one  of  a  spiritual  perspec- 
tive in  judging  religious  values,  and  so  of  relative  obligation  under 
varying  conditions.  Under  some  conditions  the  maintenance  of 
the  ritual  or  lower  values  in  the  system  of  precepts  embodying  the 
Divine  will  for  human,  that  is,  physically  conditioned  life,  involved, 
while  in  others  it  did  not  involve,  the  sacrifice  of  the  higher  or 
moral  values — ^just  as  there  was  a  certain  competition  between 
these  themselves  in  the  practice  of  daily  life.  Everything,  then, 
depended  upon  the  motive  or  spirit  expressed  in  the  choice  made 
between  the  competing  duties,  moral  and  ritual.  An  illustration 
of  this  principle  of  Jesus  is  afforded  by  the  incident  found  in  the 
ancient  Codex  Bezae,  after  the  story  of  the  discussion  in  the  corn- 
field touching  the  Sabbath  law,  in  Luke  vi.  1-4.  '  On  the  same 
day  obsei-ving  one  working  on  the  Sabbath,  he  said  to  him,  Man, 
if  indeed  thou  knowest  what  thou  art  doing,  blessed  art  thou.  But 
if  thou  knowest  not,  accursed  art  thou  and  a  transgressor  of  the 
Law.'  This,  whether  historical  or  not,  preserves  the  authentic 
spirit  of  Jesus'  attitude  ;  and  it  is  one  which  puts  out  of  court 
Montefiore's  criticism  as  applied  to  Jesus'  own  thought.  On  the 
other  hand,  by  calling  such  emphatic  attention  to  the  'higher 
criticism '  of  the  Mosaic  Law  implicit  in  Jesus'  attitude  to  it, 
Montefiore  brings  out  not  only  the  bold  originality  of  the  Prophet 
of  Nazareth  but  also  the  transcendent  authority  he  thus  claims  for 
his  own  spiritual  consciousness. 

As  regards  Jesus'  practice  in  not  formally  defining  and  declaring 
the  relative  inferiority  of  ritual  obligations  to  moral,  even  as  laid 
down  in  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  still  more  in  not  encouraging  men 
'  to  violate  the  ceremonial  law,'  the  explanation  is  simple.  It 
sprang  from  the  essentially  positive,  rather  than  negative,  spirit  of 
the  religion  he  taught  and  practised — so  'fulfilling'  rather  than 
'dissolving'  the  older  forms  of  religious  obedience.  Accordingly 
he  shewed  the  greater  obligation  of  the  higher  and  moral  duties 
by  emphasis  on  them,  rather  than  by  decrying  the  value  of  the 
lower  types  of  religious  duty  in  their  own  place  and  season.  They 
were  relative,  and  would  fall  away  with  the  perfected  order  of  the 
Kingdom  :  but  it  was  not  his  vocation,  during  the  transitional 
period  in  which  that  Kingdom  was  in  process  of  coming  to  mani- 
festation, directly  to  bring  about  or  accelerate  their  inevitable 
obsolescence  by  attack  in  word  or  example  (see  Dr.  Ilort,  Jtidaistic 


230  ST.  MARK  7.  1-23.     X^k 

Christianity,  ch.  ii,  for  this  attitude,  which  led  to  two  readings  of 
Jesus'  mind  among  his  disciples  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  and  conse- 
quent friction  in  the  matter  between  certain  representatives  of  the 
two  tendencies!. 

The  harmonizing  fact  which  binds  together  into  a  spiritual  unity 
the  things  in  Jesus  wliich  Montefiore  sees  as  discordant  and  in- 
consistent, is  that  his  spirit  and  attitude  towards  the  Law  and  the 
two  strands  in  it,  the  ritual  and  the  ethical,  was  essentially  con- 
tinuous with  that  of  the  greater  prophets,  whose  spirituality  of 
religious  thought  enabled  them  to  find  room  for  both  in  true  piety, 
but  not  as  co  ordinate  in  value  before  God.  The  moral  was  the 
essential  and  congruous  expression  of  the  heart's  loyalty  to  Israel's 
God  and  His  ways  ;  the  ritual  was  only  the  contingent  and  more 
artificial  medium  of  such  expression,  seeing  that  in  it  the  external 
and  material  element  in  obedience  might  easily  be  divorced  from 
the  inward  and  spiritual  motive,  which  alone  gave  either  form  of 
action  religious  value  in  the  eyes  of  a  God  '  who  knoweth  the 
iieart'  and  seeketh  likeness  to  Himself  in  His  worshippers  (cf. 
John  iv.  23  for  the  most  compact  statement  of  this,  as  the  criterion 
of  acceptable  religion).  Jesus  ever  refers  to  the  prophets  as  his 
forerunners  in  spirit  (Matt,  xxiii.  29  ff".  ;  Luke  xi.  47  ff.)  ;  and  in 
claiming  to  '  fulfil  '  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  he  meant  that  he 
fulfilled  the  Law  as  understood  by  and  in  the  light  of  the  Prophets, 
and  not  as  read  apart  from  them  or  in  a  way  alien  to  their  interpre- 
tation of  its  Divine  intention  or  spirit,  as  in  the  current  Rabbinical 
reading  and  developments  of  the  Pentateuchal  code. 

Here  lay  the  very  nerve  of  the  issue  between  Jesus  and  Pharisaic 
Judaism;  and  when  Montefiore  says  'it  was  impossible  for  the 
Jews  (of  Christ's  day)  to  accept  the  saying'  in  Mark  vii.  15,  as 
being  too  revolutionary  from  the  standpoint  of  current  Judaism, 
that  is  exactly  what  the  Christians,  both  at  the  beginning  and  ever 
since,  have  virtually  said  was  the  historical  meaning  of  the  Cross 
of  Jesus.  Current  oificial  Judaism  did  him  to  death  in  order  to  get 
rid  of  his  conception  of  the  Law  and  its  true  fulfilment  in  life,  in 
the  interests  of  their  own,  what  is  properly  called  '  Jewish  legalism,' 
i.e.  anti-prophetic  reading  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  In  principle,  then, 
one  interpretation  of  the  genius  of  Old  Testament  religion,  the 
Legalist,  tried  to  kill  another,  the  Prophetic  (cf.  Luke  xi.  49-52), 
in  the  person  of  its  supreme  representative  :  but  that  other  rose 
again  from  the  dead,  and  entered  upon  a  life  far  larger  and  more 
fruitful  than  that  of  its  rival.  That  rival,  in  turn,  largely  met  its 
own  death  in  the  experiences  of  the  national  overthrow  in  70  and 
^35.  when  much  that  was  typical  of  the  prevalent  legalistic 
Judaism  of  Jesus'  day  died,  never  to  rise  again  in  like  power, 
while  the  better  elements  survived  for  the  most  part  in  a  reformed 
Judaism,  yet  reformed  still  on  the  lines  of  Rabbinic  literalism. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  essential  nature  of   the  religious 


ST.  MARK  7.  1-23.     XMk  231 

struggle  looming  up  on  Jesus'  soul,  and  the  probable  outcome  of  it 
in  his  own  case,  as  in  that  of  certain  of  the  prophets  before  him, 
are  clearly  expressed  in  his  words  when,  a  little  later,  he  contem- 
plated Jerusalem,  the  Holy  City  alike  to  himself  and  to  the  Judaism 
then  in  possession  of  it.  'O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  which  killeth 
the  prophets,  and  stoneth  them  that  are  sent  on  (God's)  mission 
to  her,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  together  thy  children, 
even  as  a  bird  gathereth  her  nestlings  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
would  not '  (Luke  xiii.  34 ).  The  gradual  unfolding  of  this  issue, 
to  its  tragic  crisis  in  the  Cross,  can  henceforth  be  discerned  in  the 
pages  of  Mark,  and  more  and  more  overshadows  all  other  motifs 
in  the  story.  Here,  then,  we  have  its  turning  point,  in  the  more 
public  sense  ;  while  the  conversation  with  his  disciples  at  Csesarea 
Philippi,  in  the  next  chapter,  marks  it  for  the  more  intimate  circle 
of  those  who  had  cast  in  their  lot  with  Jesus  the  Prophet  of 
Nazareth,  and  at  length  come  to  see  in  him  '  the  Christ.' 

Third  Stage  :  the  turning  from  Galilee  and  facing  towards 
a  new  venture  in  Jerusalem. 
I.  First  phase  of  this  stage  :  vii.  24-viii.  26. 

The  definite  challenge  to  the  authority  and  distinctive  principles 
of  the  religious  leaders  of  Judaism,  the  Pharisees  and  their 
Scribes,  which  had  been  forced  on  him  by  their  criticism,  meant 
file  final  closing  of  the  synagogues  generally  to  Jesus.  At  the 
same  time  it  meant  danger  of  arrest  or  other  forceful  interference 
with  his  ministry,  especially  as  the  Herodians  also  were  now  on 
the  watch  (vi.  14-16)  and  to  some  degree  co-operating  with  his 
Pharisaic  foes  (cf.  iii.  6).  Hence  Jesus  felt  it  expedient  to  retire 
(as  Matthew  puts  it),  for  a  time  at  least,  from  the  public  eye  and 
beyond  easy  reach  of  the  authorities  of  Church  and  State  in 
Galileo.  Whether  he  could  return  again,  or  not,  to  the  region 
west  of  the  Lake,  hard  by  the  seat  of  Herod's  court  in  Tiberias 
where  his  public  ministry  had  chiefly  lain,  or  whether  this  meant 
the  end  of  his  work  in  Galilee,  was  not  yet  clear  to  his  mind.  He 
needed  a  breathing  space  for  prayer  and  thought.  Moreover  he 
needed  time  wherein  to  continue  the  training  of  his  disciples, 
particularly  the  Twelve,  upon  whom  in  his  sight  depended  more 
and  more  the  fulfilment  of  his  own  mission  of  Repentance  and 
Faith  and  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  So  Jesus 
turns  his  steps  in  various  directions,  more  or  less  remote  from  the 
danger-centre,  according  as  he  judged  timely,  beginning  with  a 
region  Ij'ing  actually  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  his  adversaries, 
outside  Galilee  altogether.  The  character  of  his  ministry  changes 
correspondingly.  He  no  longer  seeks  the  people,  '  lost  sheep' 
though  they  were  :  what  ministry  among  them  he  now  exercises, 
mainly  in  the  way  of  relieving  such  sulTering  as  forced  itself  on 


232  ST.  MARK  7.  24-30.     XMk 

his  sympathy,  is  occasional  and  not  dehberately  sought.  He  con- 
centrates on  the  inner  circle  of  those  attached  to  his  person  :  and 
his  '  training  of  the  Twelve,'  in  particular,  has  in  view  their 
preparation  for  a  future  in  which  persecution,  suffering,  and  even 
possible  death  have  to  be  faced  and  reckoned  with  as  ingredients 
in  the  '  cup  '  which  the  Father  may  hold  out  to  his  Chosen  one 
and  his  friends,  ere  the  Kingdom  '  come  in  power.'  To  enable 
them  to  stand  the  new  strain,  it  is  needful  above  everything  to 
draw  closer  and  firmer  the  bond  of  trust  in  himself,  as  God's 
Chosen  one  or  Messiah  in  a  sense  more  essential  and  intrinsic, 
because  more  spiritual,  than  they  had  as  j'et  given  evidence  of 
having  grasped.  Their  *  faith,'  as  Jesus  understood  that  term, 
needed  education  and  deepening.  This,  his  inmost  purpose, 
emerges  gradually  in  the  section  now  opening,  and  becomes  fully 
manifest  only  towards  its  close.  In  a  word,  his  time  had  not  yet 
come  for  standing  his  ground,  come  what  might,  and  allowing 
things  to  come  to  crisis  and  decision,  as  the  Father  then  willed. 

The  incident  which  comes  first  in  this  section  seems  to  have 
occurred  in  the  fundamental  apostolic  tradition  (X),  which  here 
reaches  us  in  two  forms — Mark's  and  that  implied  in  Matthew's 
divergences  therefrom.  In  the  genesis  of  X  Peter,  Mark's  prime 
source,  no  doubt  had  the  leading  part. 

Though  Mark,  who  does  not  aim  at  being  complete  in  his  account 
of  Jesus'  teaching,  gives  no  further  instances  at  this  point  of  the 
serious  difference  now  existing  between  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth 
and  the  Pharisees,  there  is  good  internal  evidence  for  believing 
that  what  he  records  (after  a  parallel  tradition  used  by  him)  in 
viii.  11-21  really  came  here,  and  helped  to  lead  up  to  the  retire- 
ment in  vii.  24  ff.  For  its  present  position  is  artificial,  attached  as 
it  is  to  the  'doublet'  account  of  a  Feeding  of  the  Multitude  (which 
has  already  preceded  in  vi.  30-44),  the  whole  forming  a  small 
'erratic  block'  of  tradition.  The  opening  of  viii.  xi,  'And  the 
Pharisees  went  forth  and  began  to  discuss  with  him,'  js  very 
parallel  to  the  situation  already  reached  (cf.  Luke  xi.  53-xii.  i, 
following  directly  on  37-41,  which  is  like  Mark  vii.  1-23). 

(a)  Retirement  beyond  Galilee  northwards :  vii.  24-30. 

vii.  24-30.  A  Syrophoeiiician  ivonian  and  her  daughter  (cf. 
Matt.  XV.  ai-28).  The  spirit  of  hostility  was  rising  (cf  viii.  11  f.^, 
and  Jesus  quits  those  districts  of  Galilee  in  which  he  had  been 
mostly  at  work.  But  though  he  withdraws  to  a  distance  from  the 
scenes  of  the  events  which  had  spread  his  fame  abroad  (cf.  iii. 
7  f.\  he  cannot  escape  the  appeal  of  individuals, even  when  beyond 
Galilee  itself  among  an  alien  population.  Matthew's  report, 
another  local  form  of  the  common  Apostolic  tradition,  makes  most 
of  what  was  said  ;  Mark's  is  more  descriptive.  The  two  together 
give  us  a  remarkably  complete  account  of  the  incident. 


ST.  MARK  7.  24-26.     XMk  233 

And  from  thence  he  arose,  and  went  away  into  the  24 
borders  of  Tyre  f^  and  Sidon"l.     And  he  entered  into  a 
house,  and  would  have  no  man  know  it :  and  he  could 
not  be   hid.      But   straightway  a  woman,   whose   little  25 
daughter  had  an  unclean  spirit,  having  heard  of  him, 
came  and  fell  down  at  his  feet.     Now  the  woman  was  26 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  and  Sidon. 


24.  And  from  thence  he  arose,  and  went  away  :  compare  x.  i. 
The  expression  implies  removal  to  a  quite  different  district,  and 
by  vi'ay  of  deliberate  retirement,  as  Matt.  xv.  21  makes  clear. 
Quite  possibly  he  first  retired  over  the  Lake  northwards,  ifviii. 
ri-2i  really  belongs  here  (see  above).  The  direction  taken  was 
in  any  case  such  as  to  carry  him  speedily  beyond  reach  of  his 
enemies,  at  the  moment  v^^hen  their  resentment  was  greatest  ; 
then  he  gradually  returned  by  a  circuitous  route,  through  the 
remoter  and  less  populous  parts  of  Galilee  to  the  north-east, 
towards  the  Lake  and  his  old  haunts. 

the  borders  of  Tyre  Tand  Sidoni :  better  than  Matthew's 
expression  (? derived  from  its  X)  'the  parts  oi  Tyre  and  Sidon,' 
meant  to  describe  only  proximity  to,  not  entry  into  Phoenicia, 
which  included  these  two  great  cities.  The  question  arises,  Did 
Jesus  actually  cross  the  boundary  and  enter  Gentile  territory  ? 
Mark's  statement  in  verse  31,  that  in  leaving  'the  borders  of 
Tyre'  Jesus  'came  through  Sidon,'  favours  this  view,  which 
Matt.  XV.  22,  'came  forth  from  those  borders,'  seems  at  pains  to 
exclude  (cf.  x.  5).  Nor  would  there  be  anything  inconsistent 
with  Jesus'  plan  of  his  ministry  in  his  crossing  into  Gentile  terri- 
tory for  a  space.  For  the  narrative  means  that  it  was  with  a 
view  to  retirement,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  public  ministry, 
that  he  did  so  :  he  'would  have  no  man  know'  (verse  24)  of  his 
presence.     He  was  travelling  incognito. 

Tyre.  The  '  Rock,'  as  the  word  meant,  in  ancient  days  was 
'  the  merchant  of  the  peoples  unto  many  isles  '  (Ezek.  xxvii.  3). 
It  was  still  a  powerful  and  populous  city,  planted  in  the  Phoenician 
plain  between  Sidon  and  Acre.  Nothing  remains  of  it  but  some 
ruins,  on  which  a  poor  modern  town  is  built. 

Sidon:  or  '  Zidon,'  '  Fishtown,'  the  rival  of  Tyre,  situated 
about  twenty  miles  north  of  that  city  and  south  of  Beyrout.  The 
two  cities  appear  together  in  the  story  of  Herod  in  Acts  (xii.  20). 
Its  mention  here  (contrast  v.  31)  seems  taken  from  Matthew. 

a  house  :  probably  of  some  Jew  who  had  seen  or  heard  him 
in  Galilee. 


234  ST.  MARK  7.  27,  28.     X^k 

a  *  Greek,  a  Syrophcenician  by  race.  And  she  besought 
him  that  he  would  cast    forth  the  t' devil   out   of  her 

27  daughter.     And  he  said  unto  her,  Let  the  children  first 
be  filled :  for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  «  bread 

28  and  cast  it  to  the  dogs.     But  she  answered  and  saith 
unto  him,  Yea,  Lord  :  even  the  dogs  under  the  table  eat 

*  Or,  Gentile  ^  Gr.  demon  "  Or,  loaf 

26.  a  Greek,  a  Syrophcenician.  Matthew  describes  her  as 
'  a  Canaanitish  woman,'  a  phrase  shewing  the  more  Jewish  feeling 
which  appears  in  its  narrative  as  a  whole.  Mark's  designations 
express  her  connexions  by  religion  and  by  race  respectively.  As 
a  'Greek'  she  was  a  Gentile;  as  a  '  Sj'ro-Phoenician '  she 
belonged  to  the  Phoenicians  of  the  Roman  province  of  Syria,  as 
distinguished  from  the  Liby-Phcenicians,  the  Phoenicians  of  Libya, 
on  the  Punic  or  Carthaginian  coast  of  N.  Africa. 

27.  Let  tlie  children  first  he  filled.  The  principle  on  which 
his  own  mission  proceeded,  and  on  which  the  Apostles  also  acted 
subsequently,  was  '  to  the  Jews  first.'     But  while  the  Jew  had  the 

first  claim,  it  did  not  follow  that  he  had  the  only  claim.  On  the 
other  hand  one  may  note  the  absence  of  these  qualifying  words 
from  Matthew. 

dogs.  In  Scripture  the  dog  is  seldom,  if  ever,  mentioned  but 
in  terms  of  contempt.  Filthiness  and  the  like  are  always  asso- 
ciated with  him.  It  is  the  street  dog  that  is  in  view,  the  outcast 
animal  that  infested  the  towns  and  villages  of  the  East.  Hence 
the  ancient  Jew  spoke  of  the  heathen  as  dogs,  with  reference  to 
their  legal  '  uncleanness.'  Here,  however,  it  is  not  the  usual  term 
for  'dogs'  that  is  used,  but  a  diminutive  form  which  softens  the 
harshness  of  the  word  and  suggests  the  little  house-dogs,  one  of 
which  may  have  been  in  sight  at  the  time.  The  words  too,  were 
perhaps  uttered  in  a  kindly  humorous  way,  both  in  tone  and 
expression  of  eye,  which  shewed  that  he  was  testing  her,  to  see 
something  of  her  spirit,  since  she  was  making  an  unusual  type  of 
demand.  The  effect  of  the  diminutive  would  best  be  conveyed  by 
rendering  it  by  the  homely  Scotch  '  doggies.'  This  reading  is  the 
more  likely,  that  Jesus  speaks  in  terms  of  a  household,  inclusive  of 
its  domestic  animals.  He  says  virtually:  '  You  are  venturing  much 
in  making  such  a  request  to  a  Jew.  Why  should  you  expect  a 
response,  seeing  that  you  know  how  Jews  v\e\v  people  like  you,  as 
their  common  way  of  speaking  implies  ?  What  would  you  say,  if 
I  put  it  so?'  This  gave  an  opening  to  the  woman,  of  which  she  in 
like  spirit  availed  herself. 

28.  Tea,  Iiord :  even  the  dog's  under  the  table  eat  of  the 
children's  crumbs.     It  is  as  if  she  said,  '  I  grant.  Sir  (the  sense 


ST.  MARK  7.  29-31.     XMk  p  235 

of  the  children's  crumbs.     And  he  said  unto  her,  For  29 
this  saying  go  thy  way ;   the  ^  devil  is  gone  out  of  thy 
daughter.      And   she  went  away   unto  her  house,  and  30 
found  the   child    laid   upon   the   bed,  and   the   *  devil 
gone  out. 

[P]  And  again  he  went  out  from  the  borders  of  Tyre,  and  31 
came  through  Sidon  unto  the  sea  of  Galilee,  through  the 

"^  Gr.  demon 

in  ordinary  conversation),  that  the  meal  is  primarily  for  the  family, 
and  that  the  little  ones  (^'bairns')  must  be  fed.  But  are  not  the 
doggies  also  of  the  house,  and  is  there  not  also  something  for  them  in 
their  turn  ?  After  all,  the  crumbs  ( '  wee  bits  '  coming  their  way  from 
the  bairns'  superfluity)  belong  to  them,  as  of  right.'  She  does  not 
take  offence  at  Jesus,  but  accepts  what  he  says  in  the  spirit  she 
read  behind  it,  and  turns  it  into  an  argument  in  favour  of  her  appeal. 

29.  Per  this  saying'.  Her  words  expressed  what  we  call 
'character,'  as  well  as  a  confidence  in  his  real  goodness  of  heart 
so  assured  that  it  could  not  contemplate  denial.  In  Matthew  the 
greatness  of  her  '  faith  '  is  explicitly  named  as  the  reason  for  Christ's 
compliance — perhaps  a  more  conventional  way  of  phrasing  it. 

30.  found  the  child  laid  upon  the  hed,  and  the  devil  (demon) 
g'one  out.  The  evil  spirit  was  gone,  though  the  child  was  not  yet 
recovered  from  the  exhaustion  of  the  possession. 

Matthew's  account  is  fuller  at  some  points,  giving,  e.g.  the 
several  stages  in  the  trial  of  the  woman's  faith,  which  emphasize 
Jesus'  initial  reserve.  It  shews  how  Jesus  met  her  first  by  sileitce 
(XV.  23),  then  by  refusal  (xv.  24),  and  finally  b\' seeming  reproach 
(xv.  26).  The  miracle  itself  has  special  notes  of  interest.  It  was 
done  on  the  ground  of  the  faith,  not  of  the  sufferer  herself,  but  of 
her  mother.  It  is  also  one  of  the  few  instances  of  healing  effected 
at  a  distance,  another  being  the  centurion's  son  or  servant. 

(b)  Return  to  East  side  of  the  Lake  xDecapolis). 
vii,  31-37.  Healing  of  a  deaf  man  ivith  defective  utterance.  This 
narrative  is  peculiar  to  Mark  (yet  cf.  Matt.  ix.  32  f.).  Matthew 
(=  his  X)  attaches  to  his  account  of  the  Syro-Phcenician  woman 
only  a  general  statement  regarding  the  departure  of  Jesus  '  thence* 
to  the  shore  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  and  of  multitudes  being  healed 
by  him  (xv.  29-31)  :  see  under  viii.  i  ff. 

31.  through  Sidon  unto  the  sea  of  Oalilee.  Leaving  the 
'  borders '  of  Tj're,  he  travelled  first  in  a  northerly  direction 
through  (the  borders  of)  Sidon.  From  these  parts  he  turned  east, 
making  by  a  circuitous  route  towards  the  further  side  of  Jordan, 
and  the  sea  of  Galilee.     This  led  him  through   '  the   borders  of 


236  ST.  MARK  7.  32.     P 

32  midst  of  the  borders  of  Decapolis.    And  they  bring  unto 

Decapolis '  (see  v.  20").  This  meant  a  considerable  dJtottr.  But 
modern  travellers  tell  us  that  there  was  a  road  from  Sidon  to 
Damascus,  leading  over  the  northern  slopes  of  Mount  Hermon. 

[Taking  the  words  '  through  Sidon  '  strictly,  as  meaning  the  city 
rather  than  its  territory,  Wellhausen  regards  them  as  a  corruption 
of  the  Aramaic  for  '  to  Bethsaida.'  This  would  bring  Mark's 
narrative  closer  to  Matt.  xv.  29*  (which,  however,  seems  here 
simply  based  on  it),  but  suits  less  well  Mark's  description  of  the 
route  as  '  through  the  midst  of  the  borders  of  Decapolis,'  i.e.  E.  of 
Jordan,  where  it  bordered  on  Galilee  proper,  the  Kingdom  of 
Herod  Antipas.] 

The  reference  to  '  the  sea  of  Galilee  *  as  Jesus'  objective  may 
point  to  the  incident  at  Bethsaida,  found  in  Mark  viii.  22  ff.,  as 
having  originally  followed  here  (rather  than  the  healing  of  the 
deaf-mute)  in  Mark's  primary  (Petrine)  tradition.  But  as  another 
form  of  the  Apostolic  tradition  (X)  known  to  Mark  in  addition,  and 
of  which  Matthew  uses  a  parallel  version  (xv.  30  f.),  here  had 
a  reference  to  Jesus'  healing  ministry  as  leading  to  the  presence  of 
'  the  crowd  '  which  had  to  be  fed  (viii.  i  f.) — specifying  the  healing 
of  the  deaf  and  dumb  (see  Matt.  xv.  31  ;  and  cf.  ix.  32  f.) — Mark 
felt  it  a  fit  occasion  on  which  to  introduce  a  striking  Petrine 
anecdote  of  this  character.  This  leads  him  to^go  on  with  what 
followed  in  the  context  of  his  secondary'  X  tradition,  of  which 
Matthew  also  had  his  own  form  and  blended  it  with  Mark's  narra- 
tive (as  he  had  done  already  in  xiv.  13-21),  e.g.  'men,  apart  from 
women  and  children.'  Hence  the  introduction  in  viii.  i  if,  of  the 
second  account  of  a  Feeding  of  the  Multitude,  the  scene  of  which 
was  also  by  the  sea  of  Galilee. 

As  has  already  been  suggested,  this  second  narrative  seems  to 
be  only  a  '  doublet '  tradition  (probably  a  current  X  account,  of 
which  Matthew  knew  a  similar  form  introduced  by  what  he  repro- 
duces in  XV.  29*^-3:)  of  the  episode  already  described  in  vi.  3ofr. 
The  effect  of  its  coming  in  here,  along  tvilh  several  episodes  attached 
to  it  in  the  same  unit  0/  tradition  (viz.  viii.  i-2i\  the  last  of  which 
brinijs  Jesus  back  to  Bethsaida  (v.  22)  after  a  voyage  to  'the  parts 
of  Dalmanutha,'  is  very  awkward.  That  the  fundamental  com- 
mon tradition,  laying  at  the  base  of  all  the  forms  of  it  known  to 
our  Evangelists,  had  no  second  feeding  of  the  Multitude,  but  passed 
almost  at  once  after  Mark  vii.  30  to  the  confession  near  Csesarea 
Philippi  (viii.  27  fl'.\  is  suggested  by  its  form  as  implied  in  Luke, 
which  has  that  Confession  immediately  after  its  only  Feeding  of 
the  Multitude  (ix.  10-17). 

Probably,  then,  the  incident  of  the  deaf-mute  is  out  of  place. 
The  attempt  to  hinder  knowledge  of  the  healing  from  spreading 
(v.  36)  has  less  obvious  fitness  in  this  region,  and  points  rather  to 


ST.  MARK  7.  33,  34.     P  237 

him  one  that  was  deaf,  and  had  an  impediment  in  his 
speech  j  and  they  beseech  him  to  lay  his  hand  upon  him. 
And  he  took  him  aside  from  the  multitude  privately^  and  33 
put  his  fingers  into  his  ears,  and  he  spat,  and  touched 
his  tongue ;  and  looking  up  to  heaven,  he  sighed,  and  34 

an  earlier  stage  in  the  Galilean  ministry  proper.  Otherwise,  Jesus 
was  simply  anxious  to  be  left  alone,  in  order  to  prepare  the 
Twelve  for  the  future  (cf.  viii.  27  ff.). 

32.  an  impediment  in  his  speech:  due  probably  to  the  very 
fact  of  his  deafness. 

33.  took  him  aside.  For  the  most  part,  the  works  of  Jesus 
were  done  in  the  sight  of  all.  But  there  were  cases,  of  which  this 
was  one,  in  which  they  were  done  apart,  with  more  or  less 
privacy.  Why  ?  Possibly  the  better  to  secure  the  man's  full 
attention,  and  to  evoke  and  educate  his  faith  by  the  exceptional 
means  which  Jesus  felt  needful,  by  way  of  object  lesson,  in  this 
case,  where  it  was  so  peculiarly  hard  to  communicate  with  the 
patient's  soul.  Perhaps  here,  and  in  the  similar  case  of  the  blind 
man  in  viii.  22  fT.,  he  did  not  wish  the  multitude  to  imagine  that  he 
himself  needed  to  use  such  means  of  healing,  means  commonly 
regarded  as  themselves  effecting  a  cure  in  magical  fashion  (so  with 
spittle  in  particular).  They  were  actuallj'  used  by  him  only 
symbolically',  as  media  of  communication  between  him  and  the 
deaf  and  blind  respective!}',  by  dumb-show  or  feeling,  in  place  of 
word  or  sight  of  his  own  face  as  awakening  or  stimulating  faith. 
It  was  probably  the  ambiguous  meaning  that  readers  might  put 
upon  the  use  of  such  means  which  led  to  the  omission  of  the  whole 
incident  in  Matthew  and  Luke  (who  however  omits  all  Mk.  vi. 
45-viii.  26). 

put  his  fingers  into  his  ears:  rather  'thrust'  them  in.  It 
was  a  sign  of  what  he  was  to  do,  suitable  to  the  man's  state  of 
mind  and  fixing  his  attention. 

spat :  spittle  was  thought  to  have  medicinal  virtue,  and  was 
often  accompanied  by  magical  formulae.  Here  it  seems  simply 
the  symbol  of  the  healing  power,  or  a  visible  sign  to  help  the 
man's  faith. 

sig'hed :  or  'groaned,'  cf.  viii.  12,  see  also  Rom.  viii.  23, 
2  Cor,  v.  2,  4,  where  it  is  rendered  '  groan.'  It  expresses  some 
otherwise  inexpressible  feeling  suggested  bj'  the  poor  sufferer's 
case,  possibly  that  of  the  pathos  of  his  needing  to  be  reached  by 
such  indirect,  humiliating  methods  of  spiritual  contact.  '  Oh,  the 
pity  of  it!  To  think  that  man,  the  Father's  earthly  child,  should 
be  found  in  such  disabling  bondage  of  body  ! '  '  The  "  Son  of 
Man "  was  oppressed  with  the  burden  of  suffering  humanity ' 
(A.  F.  Hort). 


238  ST.  MARK  7.  35-37.     P 

35  saith  unto  him,  Ephphatha,  that  is,  Be  opened.  And 
his  ears  were  opened^  and  the  bond  of  his  tongue  was 

36  loosed,  and  he  spake  plain.  And  he  charged  them  that 
they  should  tell  no  man  :  but  the  more  he  charged  them, 

37  so  much  the  more  a  great  deal  they  published  it.  And 
they  were  beyond  measure  astonished,  saying.  He  hath 
done  all  things  well :  he  maketh  even  the  deaf  to  hear, 
and  the  dumb  to  speak. 

Ephphatha:  another  of  Jesus"  words  at  a  dramatic  moment 
(cf.  V.  46) — treasured  up  by  Mark  in  the  vernacular,  from  Peter's 
vivid  telHng  of  the  story. 

36.  The  injunction  to  silence  was  earnestly  and  repeatedly 
laid  upon  the  friends  who  had  brought  the  man  and  liad  witnessed 
his  healing.  But  in  their  excitement  they  so  utterly  disregarded 
it,  that  it  seemed  as  if  his  words  did  but  stimulate  their  zeal  to 
proclaim  the  deed.  The  urgency  of  Jesus'  desire  that  it  should  not 
be  noised  abroad,  as  he  foresaw  it  would  be  in  this  case,  was 
probably  due  to  his  anxiety  to  be  able  to  spend  this  time  incognito, 
preparing  the  Twelve  for  the  coming  crisis  of  his  journey  to 
Jerusalem. 

37.  toeyoiid  measure:  a  very  strong  word,  of  which  this  is  the 
one  occurrence  in  the  N.T.  The  impression  usually  produced  by 
Jesus'  mighty  works  was  in  this  case  even  exceeded. 

(c)  A  ^doublet'  of  the  Feeding  and  related  matter :  viii.  1-26. 

viii.  I -10.  The  feeding  of  the  Four  Thousand  [cL  Matt.  xv.  32-39). 
In  contrast  with  the  fourfold  narrative  in  the  former  miracle  of 
feeding,  we  have  in  the  present  case  only  a  twofold  record.  The 
question  arises  whether  this  is  another  form  of  that  narrative,  or 
whether  there  were  two  distinct  incidents,  much  the  same  in 
character,  of  which  the  reports  Ijccame,  in  the  primitive  tradition, 
to  some  extent  assimilated.  The  chief  reasons  urged  in  support  of 
the  former  or  '  duplicate  '  theory  are  the  general  resemblances  of 
the  two  accounts,  and  the  fact  that  the  disciples  here  betray  no 
recollection  (viii.  4)  of  a  previous  work  of  the  same  kind.  Several 
points  of  difference  between  the  two  narratives  are  dealt  with  in 
the  notes  ;  but  the  reasons  for  regarding  this  section  as  a  '  doublet ' 
tradition  of  the  other  seem  the  more  cogent. 

Note  the  vagueness  and  generality  of  the  opening  description  of 
time,  place,  and  circumstance,  quite  unlike  Mark's  usual  manner. 
This  suggests  that  here  he  is  following  nc)t  the  memory  of  an  eye- 
witness, Peter,  but  a  source  (oral  or  written)  more  like  that  which 
underlies  Matthew  where  the  latter  is  not  based  on  Mark.  That 
is,  we  have  here  a  later  (cf.  note  on  v.  6j,  non-Petrine  form  of 


ST.  MARK  8.  I,  2.     XMk^  239 

[XMk2j  Yn  those  days,  when  there  was  again  a  great  8 
multitude,  and  they  had  nothing  to  eat,  he  called  unto 
him  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto  them,  I  have  compassion  2 
on  the  multitude,  because  they  continue  with  me  now 

Palestinian  Apostolic  tradition  (X),  a  form  later  even  than  that 
known  to  Luke,  who  accordingly  omits  this  account  of  a  Feed- 
ing. That  this  second  narrative  of  the  Feeding  of  a  Multitude,  is 
really  a 'doublet,'  or  alternative  version  of  one  event,  is  suggested 
not  only  by  the  similarity  in  matter  and  form  (save  for  the  numbers 
fed,  4,000  not  5,000,  and  the  time  spent  on  the  spot,  viz.,  '  three 
days  '),  but  still  more  by  two  things  hard  to  harmonize  with  Mark's 
foregoing  narrative.  There  is  first  '  the  extreme  difficulty  of 
supposing  that  the  memory  of  the  first  miracle  could  have  been  '  so 
absent '  from  the  minds  of  the  disciples,  so  i  oon  after  its  occurrence, 
as  to  leave  them  in  the  state  of  perplexity  depicted  in  ch.  viii.  4.' 
For  there  they  virtually  repeat  their  former  question,  '  shall  we  go 
and  buy  bread  .  .  .  and  give  them  to  eat  ?  '  (vi.  37).  That  were 
*  to  postulate  an  almost  incredible  dullness  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples  '  {Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  419).  Then  there  is 
the  fact  that  a  section  in  which  Jesus  has  with  him  '  a  great  multi- 
tude '  occurs  oddly  in  the  midst  of  a  stage  in  his  ministry  when  he 
was  shunning  publicity  (see  vii.  24)  and  dealing  only  with  indivi- 
duals (as  in  the  last  incident  and  in  the  kindred  one  in  viii.  22-26). 
If,  then,  this  Feeding  be  a  '  doublet,'  referring  really  to  the  period 
before  Jesus'  period  of  deliberate  retirement  (i.e.  before  vii.  24), 
the  episode  appended  to  it,  in  which  the  Pharisees  '  tempt '  him 
for  a  '  sign,'  may  well  have  been  parallel  in  time  with  the 
encounter  with  the  Pharisees  and  their  scribes  which  follows  the 
Feeding  in  the  earlier  context  in  Mark  (vii.  i  flf.). 

Assuming  that  this  account  of  viii.  1-13  (with  which  14-21  is 
closely  bound  up)  to  be  correct,  we  get  an  explanation  of  the 
'apparently  motiveless  plying  backwards  and  forwards  over  the 
Lake  '  (Wendling,  cited  in  Studies,  &c.,  p.  420).  It  is  moreover 
confirmed  by  the  phenomena  of  Matthew's  two  Feedings,  in  the 
settings  where  they  appear  in  xiv.  13  ff.,  xv.  29-39,  read  along  with 
Luke  ix.  lof.,  and  what  precedes  and  follows  those  verses  in  Luke 
ix.  For  Matt.  xiv.  if.  and  Luke  ix.  7-9  imply  the  use  of  X  in 
varying  forms  of  it,  parallel  with  Mark  vi.  14-16  ;  then  again  (after 
the  story  of  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  which  Luke  omits)  there 
are  like  traces  of  X  parallel  with  Mark  vi.  30-34  in  Matt.  xiv.  13  f. 
and  Luke  ix.  lo*^,  11,  both  having  in  common  (as  distinct  from 
Mark)  'retired,'  'the  crowds,'  and  references  to  'healing'  of  their 
sick.  The  key  to  this  appears  in  Matt.  xv.  30,  where  we  read 
of  '  great  crowds'  bringing  their  sick  folk,  'and  he  healed  them.' 
This   follows  on   the  words  in   29*^,   '  and  he  went   up   into  the 


240  ST.  MARK  8.  3-8.     XMk^ 

3  three  days,  and  have  nothing  to  eat :  and  if  I  send  them 
away  fasting  to  their  home,  they  will  faint  in  the  way ; 

4  and  some  of  them  are  come  from  far.  And  his  disciples 
answered  him.  Whence  shall  one  be  able  to  fill  these 

5  men  with  '^  bread  here  in  a  desert  place  ?  And  he  asked 
them,  How  many  loaves  have  ye?    And  they  said,  Seven. 

6  And  he  commandeth  the  multitude  to  sit  down  on  the 
ground  :  and  he  took  the  seven  loaves,  and  having  given 
thanks,  he  brake,  and  gave  to  his  disciples,  to  set  before 

7  them ;  and  they  set  them  before  the  multitude.  And 
they  had  a  few  small  fishes :  and  having  blessed  them, 

8  he  commanded  to  set  these  also  before  them.    And  they 

■^  Gr.  loaves 

mountain,  and  sat  there,'  which  may  well  have  followed  originally 
(in  X^')  on  the  words  in  Matt.  xiv.  13,  'And  on  hearing  it  (John's 
death)  Jesus  retired  thence'  (followed  by  'the  multitudes,'  the 
sick  among  whom  he  healed  :  see  also  Luke  ix.  11).  Here,  then, 
we  seem  to  have  the  introduction  to  the  X  story  of  the  Feeding  as 
known  toMatthewand  Luke,  whichwas  blended  with  the  opening  to 
Mark's  account  of  it  in  Matt.  xiv.  13,  Luke  ix.  10'',  11*,  but  utilized 
in  full  by  Matthew  when  Mark  viii.  i  fT,  uses  a  similar  form  of  the 
story  with  a  very  vague  opening — ^in  terms  derived  simply  from  the 
contents  of  the  story  itself:  '  In  those  days,  when  there  was  again 
a  great  crowd  and  they  had  nothing  to  eat.'  Luke,  on  the  other 
hand,  used  only  those  parts  of  Mark's  whole  section  vi.  14-viii.  26 
which  were  parallel  to  his  form  of  X  (to  which  he  gives  habitual 
preference). 

2.  three  days.  A  feature  peculiar  to  this  narrative,  as  distinct 
from  the  former  one.  'Three  days,'  in  Jewish  reckoning,  might 
be  only  two  days  in  all  (the  first  and  third  being  only  parts  of 
a  day).  By  this  time  they  had  consumed  almost  all  the  food  they 
had  brought.    But  see  vi.  33  for  a  better  explanation  of  the  situation. 

4.  Whence  shall  one  be  able  to  fill  these  men  with  bread? 
Though  in  form  the  question  is  not  quite  the  same  as  on  the 
previous  occasion,  yet  it  is  hardly  credible  that  it  should  be 
repeated  in  any  shape  at  all. 

5.  Seven:  a  number  symbolic  of  perfection  :  contrast  vi.  43. 

6.  having  gfiven  thanks.  It  is  perhaps  significant  of  the 
different  circle  in  which  this  second  account  of  a  Feeding  took 
shape,  that  the  verb  here  used  {cucharistein)  differs  from  that  in  the 
former  one,  viz.  to  'bless'  (God),  eitlogein  loused  also  in  v.  7). 


ST.  MARK  8.  9-1  r.     XMk2  241 

did  eat,  and  were  filled  :  and  they  took  up,  of  broken 
pieces   that  remained  over,   seven  baskets.     And   they  9 
were  about   four   thousand :    and   he  sent   them  away. 
And   straightway   he   entered    into   the    boat   with    his  10 
disciples,  and  came  into  the  parts  of  Dalmanutha. 

And  the  Pharisees  came  forth,  and  began  to  question  11 


8.  baskets  :  a  different  word  in  the  original  from  that  in  vi.  43, 
perhaps  '  fish-baskets.'  It  was  in  a  basket  of  this  kind  that  Paul 
was  lowered  'down  through  the  wall '  at  Damascus  (Acts  ix.  25). 

9.  four  thousand:  compared  with  5,000  in  the  previous  story. 
Matthew  adds  in  both  cases  'beside  women  and  children.' 

10.  Dalxnanutha.  Probably  this  verse  should  go  closely  with 
the  next  section,  as  the  'came  forth  '  of  v.  11  suggests.  This  is 
the  only  passage  in  which  this  word  occurs.  Matthew  says  that 
Jesus  '  came  into  the  borders  of  Magadan  '  (xv.  39)  ;  fortius  read- 
ing of  the  R.  V.  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  Magdala  of  the  A.  V. 
But  we  know  about  as  little  of  this  Magadan  as  of  Dalmanutha, 
though  Eusebius  describes  it  as  'about  Gerasa'  (cf  Mk.  v.  i).  The 
only  place  with  a  name  at  all  like  Dalmanutha  is  ed-Delhemij'eh, 
some  five  miles  to  the  south  of  the  Lake,  on  the  eastern  bank  ol  the 
Jordan,  near  its  junction  with  the  Yarmuk.  But  their  identity  is 
very  dubious.  Some  identify  Magadan  with  Magdala,  and  so  with 
el-Mejdel  at  the  south  end  of  the  Plain  of  Gennesaret  (cf.  vi.  53). 
The  Talmud  mentions  several  Migdals  in  this  district.  Allen  is 
inclined  to  think  the  name  Dalmanutha  due  to  corruption  in  the 
Aramaic  stage  of  its  transmission,  possibly  starting  from  Migdal- 
nunia,  a  mile  from  Tiberias,  probably  to  the  south.  Dalmanutha 
would  then  be  Dalma(»=  Ma(g)dal)-nutha  (MS.  B  has  -nuntha 
=  Mum'a,  and  the  Armenian  version  -nttnea).  This  would  bring 
Matthew  and  Mark  to  much  the  same  result  (cf.  Gennesaret  in 
vi.  53)- 

viii.  11-13.  The  Pharisees  seek  from  hitn  a  sign  (cf.  Matt, 
xvi    I,  2*,  4). 

H.  began  to  question:  better  'to  argue.'  This  incident  is 
given  by  Luke  in  a  different  connexion  (xi.  16,  29;  cf.  Matt.  xii. 
38  ff.).  Matthew  introduces  it  in  both  connexions,  apparently 
influenced  by  his  X  and  Mark  respectively.  If  the  second  Feeding 
is  only  a  'doublet'  of  the  first,  then  possibly  this  episode  was 
another  instance  of  the  controversial  attitude  of  the  Pharisees 
described  already  in  vii.  i  ff.  :  it  would  follow  vii.  20  very  naturally'. 
Both  would  be  in  the  region  of  Gennesaret. 

R 


242  ST.  MARK  8.  12-15.     X^^^ 

with  him,  seeking  of  him  a  sign  from  heaven,  tempting 

13  him.     And  he  sighed  deeply  in  his  spirit,  and  saith, 

Why  doth  this  generation  seek  a  sign  ?  verily  I  say  unto 

you,  There  shall  no  sign  be  given  unto  this  generation. 

13  And    he   left   them,   and   again   entering   into  the  boat 
departed  to  the  other  side. 

14  And  they  forgot  to  take  bread;  and  they  had  not  in 

15  the  boat  with  them  more  than  one  loaf.    And  he  charged 

a  Bigrn  from  heaven  :  i.  e.  some  audible  or  visible  manifesta- 
tion unmistakably  from  above,  different  from  the  works  of  mercy 
characteristic  of  Jesus.  Such  a  sheer  marvel  might  be  manna  (cf. 
John  vi.  30,  &c.),  or  perhaps  the  peculiar  '  sign,'  the  Bath-Qol,  the 
'  daughter  of  the  voice  '  or  the  '  daughter  voice,'  of  which  much  is 
made  in  the  Rabbinical  books — a  heavenly  voice  supposed  to  have 
been  granted  after  the  cessation  of  O.  T.  prophecj^,  and  to  convey 
the  testimony  of  heaven  on  special  occasions. 

tempting':  putting  him  to  the  test,  hoping  to  entrap  him 
(cf.  X.  2). 

12.  sighed  deeply:  or,  'groaned  deepl3^'  An  intensive  form 
of  the  verb  (cf.  vii.  34),  occurring  only  here.  What  moved  him 
thus  was  the  hardened  attitude  of  these  Pharisees,  which  betokened 
a  final  separation  between  them — as  representatives  of  their 
generation — and  him,  with  the  results  thereof. 

verily:  ///.  '  Amen.'  This  Hebrew  term  was  used  by  Jesus 
in  Aramaic,  as  a  corroboration  of  any  statement  to  which  he  wished 
to  give  solemn  emphasis.  It  occurs  thirteen  times  in  Mark,  thirty 
times  in  Matthew,  and  often  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the  redupli- 
cated form. 

There  shall  no:  lit.  'If  there  shall  be  given  a  sign,'  a 
Hebraism  (cf.  i  Kings  xix.  6)  for  emphatic  denial.  For  the  idea 
of  Messiah's  generation  as  not  worthy  of  '  signs  '  cf.  Isa.  liii.  2,  8. 

to  the  other  side :  apparently  in  the  direction  of  Bethsaida 
(v.  22). 

viii.  14-21.  Warning  against  the  haven  of  the  Pharisees  and  the 
leaven  of  Herod:  the  blindness  of  the  disciples  rebuked  (cf.  Matt.  xvi. 
5-12  :  see  Luke  xii.  i). 

14.  they  forgot  to  take  bread.  It  was  the  duty  of  one  or 
more  of  the  disciples,  and  more  particularly  of  Judas,  if  purse- 
bearer  (John  xii.  6),  to  see  to  the  provision  needed  for  a  journey. 
But  they  had  omitted  to  do  so.  Perhaps  this  forgetfulness  was 
due  to  the  haste  of  their  departure. 

IB.  charged  them:  rather  '  he  was  engaged  in  charging  them,' 


ST.  MARK  8.  1 6,  17.     XMk2  243 

them,  saying,  Take  heed,  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees  and  the  leaven  of  Herod.     And  they  reasoned  16 
one  with  another,  ^  saying,  ^We  have  no  bread.     And  17 
Jesus  perceiving   it   saith   unto    them.   Why   reason  ye, 
because  ye  have   no  bread  ?    do  ye  not  yet  perceive, 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  read  because  they  had  no  bread. 
^  Ofj  It  is  because  we  have  no  bread. 

i.e.  in  the  course  of  his  private  teaching  following  on  recent 
encounters  with  those  in  question.  This  is  a  most  significant 
verse  as  bearing  on  the  thoughts  now  occupying  Jesus'  mind  and 
determining  his  movements. 

the  leaven.  The  use  of  leaven  during  Passover  and  in 
connexion  with  certain  offerings  {Lev.  ii.  ii)  was  forbidden  by 
the  Law.  Thus  it  readily  became  a  figure  of  what  was  evil  or 
corrupt.  Only  once  in  the  N.  T.  is  it  used  in  the  neutral  sense, 
viz.  in  the  Parable  of  the  Leaven.  Otherwise  it  is  a  figure  of  evil, 
and  more  particularly  of  secret,  penetrating,  insidious  evil  (i  Cor. 
v.  6,  7,  8  ;  Gal.  v.  9  >.  The  explanation  given  by  Matthew  (xvi.  12) 
suggests  that  vv'hat  Jesus  had  specially  in  view  was  the  insidious 
influence  of  false  ideas  and  aims. 

of  the  Pharisees  aud  the  leaven  of  Herod.  The  repetition 
of  the  word  '  leaven  '  indicates  that  two  distinct  kinds  of  evil 
influence  are  referred  to.  Matthew's  less  accurate  version  has  the 
leaven  of  '  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees'  (though  'the  leaven  of 
Herod  '  would  be  akin  to  that  of  the  Sadducees).  The  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees  is  defined  in  Luke  xii.  i  as  religious  formalism 
('hypocrisy')  ;  and  this  is  probabl}'  chiefly  in  Jesus'  mind.  'The 
leaven  of  Herod  '  wouM  be  worldliness  of  mind,  and  the  policy  it 
leads  to. 

16.  reasoned:  better  '  began  to  discuss  '  with  each  other  about 
this  warning,  taken  in  a  dully  literal  sense.  'What,'  we  must 
imagine  them  sa3'ing,  '  did  our  Master  mean  by  that  dark  hint 
about  '  the  leaven  '  of  his  foes  :  was  he  pointing  to  the  possibility 
that  they  might  take  foul  means  to  do  away  with  him  by  offering 
us  poisoned  loaves  in  our  need?  What  are  we  to  do  in  the 
matter?     How  supply  our  need  without  risk?' 

17.  do  ye  not  yet  perceive,  neither  tinclerstand  ?  There  is 
a  tone  of  reproach  in  the  question.  Even  after  all  their  intercourse 
with  him,  they  had  not  yet  learned  to  reflect  and  take  in  the  real 
meaning  of  things.  Was  their  faith  in  his  wisdom  and  ability  to 
meet  such  a  minor  emergency  (cf.  Matt.  xvi.  8,  '  O  little  of  faith  ') 
so  slight?  What  they  had  already  seen  him  do  in  supplying  need 
should  have  taught  them  to  trust  him  more,  and  not  to  let  their 
thoughts  run  on  this  lack  of  provision. 


244  •     ST.  MARK  8.  iS-22.     X^k-  p 

neither   understand?    have    ye    your    heart   hardened? 

18  Having  eyes,  see  ye  not?  and  having  ears,  hear  ye  not? 

19  and  do  ye  not  remember  ?  When  I  brake  the  five 
loaves  among  the  five  thousand,  how  many  *  baskets  full 
of  broken  pieces   took   ye   up?     They  say  unto  him, 

20  Twelve.  And  when  the  seven  among  the  four  thousand, 
how  many  ^.basketfuls  of  broken   pieces   took  ye  up? 

ax  And  they  say  unto  him,  Seven.    And  he  said  unto  them, 

Do  ye  not  yet  understand  ? 
23       [Pj    And    they   come    unto    Bethsaida.      And    they 

*  Basket  in  verses  19  and  20  represents  different  Greek  words. 

heart  hardened:  i.e.  dully  insensitive  (cf.  vi.  52),  like  the 
spiritual  faculties  of  the  masses  in  iv.  12  ;  only  there  Isa.  vi.  9  f.  is 
in  view,  wliile  here  it  is  words  of  Jer.  v.  21  which  follow. 

18.  and  do  ye  not  remember?  The  best  arrangement  of  the 
clause  probably  is  this,  '  And  do  you  not  remember,  when  I  broke 
the  five  loaves  among  the  five  thousand,  how  many  baskets  full  of 
fragments  ye  took  up  ?  ' 

19.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Greek  construction  used  in  the 
two  parallel  verses  is  not  the  same,  that  of  the  latter  being  nearest 
to  Mark's  own  form  in  vi.  43,  ///.  '  fillings  of  baskets.'  This  rather 
suggests  that  verse  19  is  a  later  gloss,  especially  as  B  L  have  no 
'and'  introducing  verse  20. 

21.  Do  ye  not  yet  understand  ?  Jesus  returns  to  his  opening 
words  of  disappointment,  and  leaves  them  as  a  challenge  to  deeper 
thought.  This  is  characteristic  of  Jesus'  whole  method  of  teaching 
by  awakening  the  mind  to  'seek.'  Matthew's  account  is  here 
more  detailed  and  explanatory. 

viii.  22-26.  Restoration  of  sight  to  a  blind  man  at  Detlisaida. 

The  second  of  the  two  miracles  which  are  giyen  only  by  Mark  (yet 
cf.  Matt.  ix.  27  ff.),  probably  from  Peter's  memory.  In  this  case, 
as  in  the  former  (the  healing  of  the  deaf-mute,  vii.  3ifr.\  the 
miracle  is  done  apart  from  the  multitude,  in  a  gradual  way,  and 
with  the  help  of  tangible  means. 

22.  tliey  come  unto  Bethsaida.  This  episode,  taken  by  itself, 
has  nothing  to  suggest  a  journey  other  than  by  land — as  would  be 
the  case  if  its  true  and  original  context  was  after  ch.  vii.  31.  As 
Jesus  proceeded  from  this  Bethsaida  to  '  the  villages  of  Caesarea 
Philippi,'  Bethsaida  Julias,  standing  back  a  mile  or  so  from  the 
north-eastern  shore  of  the  Lake,  is  meant,  though  it  was  now  a 
city,  whereas  this  Bethsaida  ia  twice  called  a  '  village.' 


ST.  MARK  8.  23-25.     P  245 

bring  to  him  a  blind  man,  and  beseech  him  to  touch 
him.     And  he  took  hold  of  the  blind  man  by  the  hand,  23 
and  brought  him  out  of  the  village ;  and  when  he  had 
spit  on  his  eyes,  and  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  he  asked 
him,  Seest  thou  aught?     And  he  looked  up,  and  said,  24 
I  see  men ;  for  I  behold  theiJi  as  trees,  walking.     Then  25 
again  he  laid  his  hands  upon  his  eyes ;  and  he  looked 

a  blind  man.  So  far  as  Mark's  record  goes,  this  is  the  first 
case  of  the  kind  brought  to  Jesus.  In  Matt.  xi.  5,  Luke  vii.  21 
we  find  a  reference  to  blind  receiving  their  sight  made  by  Jesus 
in  his  answer  to  John's  disciples. 

Blindness  and  ophthalmia  have  always  been  commoner  in  the 
East  than  in  the  West.  The  conditions  of  climate  and  life  account 
for  this.  The  word  '  blind  '  or  '  blindness  '  occurs  no  less  than 
thirt3'-six  times  in  the  literal  sense  in  the  N,T.,  not  to  speak  of 
its  figurative  use.  Sightless,  blear-eyed,  miserable  men  and 
women  often  confront  one  in  Syrian  towns  and  villages,  making 
one  of  the  most  distressing  spectacles  in  Eastern  Life. 

23.  out  of  the  village.  At  this  period  of  his  ministry  Jesus 
seems  to  have  taken  special  precautions  against  a  publicity  which 
might  upset  his  plans  or  lead  to  a  premature  issue.  For  this  and 
what  follows  see  vii.  33  fi".  and  notes  there. 

spit  on  his  eyes.  As  in  the  case  of  the  deaf-mute.  Such  use 
of  spittle  was  common  in  antiquity.  A  similar  cure  is  attributed 
to  the  Emperor  Vespasian  (Suetonius,  Life,  ch.  7}. 

laid  his  hands  npon  him.  The  appeal  liad  been  that  he 
might  touch  him.  To  aid  and  stimulate  the  man's  faith,  which 
ma}'  well  have  been  dull  and  inert,  he  does  even  more. 

24.  1  see  men ;  for  I  hehold  them  as  trees,  walking'.  This 
rendering  of  the  R.  V.  is  better  than  that  of  the  A.  V.,  '  I  see  men 
as  trees,  walking,'  which  is  based  on  an  inferior  Greek  text. 
Better  still,  '  I  see  men;  fori  perceive  objects  like  trees,  walking' 
(Swete).  'Certain  moving  forms  he  saw  about  him,  but  without 
the  power  of  discerning  their  shape  or  magnitude  :  trees  he  should 
have  accounted  them  from  their  height,  and  men  from  their  motion  ' 
(Trench).  They  loomed  larger  than  nature  to  his  dazed  vision. 
Even  in  Mark's  narrative  there  is  nothing  more  realistic  than 
this.  This  experience  of  the  healed  man  is  true  to  nature  and  to 
medical  testimon}'.  What  the  man  says  about  'trees'  and  'men,' 
and  the  use  of  the  word  '  restored,'  suggest  that  once  he  had  seen. 

25.  again  he  laid  his  hands  upon  his  eyes.  So  gradual  was 
the  work  of  restoration.  It  needed  time,  and  touch,  and  concen- 
trated   attention    on   the   part  of  the    man,  to    interpret    the   new 


246  ST.  MARK  8.  26.     P 

stedfastly,  and  was  restored,  and  saw  all  things  clearly. 
26  And  he  sent  him  away  to  his  home,  saying,  Do  not  even 
enter  into  the  village. 

sensations.  Archbishop  Trench  refers  to  an  account  of  the  cure  of 
a  man  who  had  been  blind  from  birth  :  '  When  he  first  saw,  he 
knew  not  the  shape  of  anything,  nor  any  one  thing  from  another, 
however  different  in  shape  or  magnitude;  but  being  told  what 
things  were,  whose  forms  he  before  knew  from  feeling,  he  would 
carefully  observe,  that  he  might  know  them  again.' 

he  looked  stedfastly.  The  verb  describes  the  act  of  fixing 
one's  eyes  on  an  object,  so  as  to  discern  distinctly  what  it  is  ('  see 
clearly,'  in  Matt.  vii.  5  ;  Luke  vi.  42). 

saw  all  things  clearly  :  better  '  distinctly.' 
26.  Do  not  even  enter  into  the  village.  The  man  did  not 
live  in  the  village.  He  had  been  brought  to  it,  possibly  from  some 
adjacent  farmstead  or  village,  and  his  healer  will  have  him  go  at 
once  to  his  home.  The  healing  was  a  pure  deed  of  mercy,  with 
no  relation  to  Jesus'  general  ministry,  it  being  his  aim  for  the 
moment  that  public  excitement  and  agitation,  which  might  be  hurt- 
ful to  his  real  objects,  should  be  avoided. 

2.  Second  phase  of  this  stage  :  viii.  27-ix.  50. 

'  Here  opens  a  new  section  of  the  Gospel.  The  tendency  to 
seek  retirement  with  the  Twelve,  pronounced  from  vi.  31  onwards, 
now  dominates  the  story.  Jesus  devotes  Himself  to  training  the 
Twelve  in  the  shadow  of  the  Cross.  This  concentration  on  His 
Disciples  becomes  possible  when  they  pierce  His  [Messianicl 
secret.  The  full  significance  of  the  confession  is  only  apparent  if 
Jesus  had  not  previously  revealed  Himself  or  been  recognized  as 
Messiah'  (H.  G.  Wood,  in  Peake's  Commentary  on  the  Bible, 
p.  691).  'Further,'  as  Dr.  J.  Denney  observes  (Jesus and  tlie  Gospel, 
p.  185),  'the  critical  change  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  which  sets 
in,  has  much  to  support  it.  It  is  .  .  .  inherently  credible  and 
likely  that  such  a  change  should  have  come  with  the  crisis  in  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  with  which  Mark  connects  it — a  crisis  in  which 
the  antagonism  of  Hi.s  own  people  had  driven  Him  beyond  their 
borders,  and  led  Him  to  concentrate  His  efforts  on  the  training  of 
the  Twelve.' 

In  the  words  of  another  scholar  (W.  C.  Braithwaite,  The  Teach- 
ing of  the  TransfigiiratioYi,  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Oxford  Soc.  of 
Historical  Theology,  1904-5,  p.  28),  '  Christ's  mind  is  being  turned 
to  the  special  ministry  to  his  disciples  which  was  needed  to  enable 
them  to  become'  a  stable  nucleus  for  the  Kingdom  now  nearing 
manifestation,  '  the  foundation  on  which  the  spiritual  Israel  should 
be  built.  His  growing  consciousness  of  approaching  rejection 
and  suffering  was  a  natural  reason  for  this  (cf.  Is.  viii   16-18).' 


ST.  MARK  8.  27.    XMk  247 

[X^k]  And  Jesus  went  forth,  and  his  disciples,  into  the  27 
villages  of  Caesarea  Philippi :   and  in  the  way  he  asked 

(a)  A  turning-point  in  Jesus'  ministry :  viii.  27-ix.  i. 

viii.  27-30.  Jesus'  Messiahship  confessed  by  the  Disciples  (cf.  Matt, 
xvi.  13-30  ;  Lukeix.  18-21).  Hereagainwe  have  the  triple  narrative 
at  a  turning-point  of  Jesus'  ministry,  which  left  its  record  in  all  the 
forms  of  the  common  apostolic  tradition.  The  occasion  w.ns  a 
momentous  one.  The  district  of  Caesarea  Philippi  was  a  remote 
part  of  the  country,  in  which  he  could  have  the  retirement  which 
he  had  sought  in  vain  elsewhere.  Opposition  was  sharpening 
and  the  crisis  of  his  life  was  drawing  on.  And  here  he  found 
opportunity  to  bring  matters  to  a  point  with  his  disciples  in  regard 
both  to  his  Person  and  to  his  Passion.  His  way  took  him  near  the 
upper  course  of  the  Jordan,  to  the  N.  E.  of  the  waters  of  Merom, 
and  some  twent3'-five  miles  above  the  sea  of  Galilee.  It  brought 
him  into  one  of  the  most  remarkable  parts  of  the  Holy  Land— a 
region  of  deep  solitudes,  where,  with  Mount  Hermon  towering 
on  the  N.,  nature  is  seen  in  some  of  her  grandest  forms. 

27.  into  the  villages  of  Caesarea  Philippi.  It  was  probably 
Peter's  memory  which  supplied  Mark  with  the  exact  locality  of 
the  episode,  to  add  to  what  was  part  of  the  common  apostolic 
tradition  (cf.  Luke  ix.  18).  It  was  so  called  to  distinguish  it  from 
another  Caesarea,  Caesarea  Palestinae  or  Styaionis,  '  Caesarea  on 
the  Sea,'  the  city  north  of  Jaffa  in  which  St.  Paul  was  imprisoned. 
It  got  the  name  'Caesarea'  in  honour  of  the  Emperor  Augustus 
Caesar;  and  the  'Philippi'  was  added  in  honour  of  Philip,  the 
tetrarch  of  Trachonitis  and  all  the  region  N.  E.  of  the  sea  of 
Galilee,  who  had  rebuilt  and  beautified  it.  In  remote  antiquity  the 
site  had  been  occupied  by  a  city  which  is  identified  by  some  with 
the  Baal-Gad  of  Joshua  (xi.  17,  xii.  7,  xiii.  4),  by  others  with  the 
Baal-Hermon  of  Judges  (iii.  3)  and  i  Chronicles  (v.  23).  After 
Christ's  day  it  was  occupied  by  a  town  known  as  Paneas  (the 
modern  Banias),  from  the  Paneion,  a  sanctuary  of  Pan  in  a  deep 
cavern  in  the  neighbourhood  (Josephus,  Aii/iq.xv.  10.  3\  Planted 
at  the  foot  of  the  Lebanon  on  a  terrace  1,150  feet  above  sea-level, 
surrounded  by  groves  of  oaks  and  poplars,  with  fertile  plains 
stretching  westwards,  and  the  snowy  Hermon  to  the  north-east,  it 
has  a  romantic  beauty  beyond  any  other  town  in  the  land.  '  Almost 
a  Syrian  Tivoli,'  is  Dean  Stanley's  description  of  it. 

in  the  way  he  asked  his  disciples :  better  '  began  to  ques- 
tion.' He  draws  from  them  their  ideas  as  to  his  mission.  It  is  the 
first  time  that  he  questions  the  Twelve  directly  about  himself.  Luke 
has  it  that  the  exact  moment  when  the  crucial  question  was  put  was 
prepared  for  by  prayer  (ix.  18).  So  had  it  been  also  before  he 
went  on  his  first  circuit  among  the  synagogues  of  Galilee  (^Mark  i. 
35),  and  before  he  chose  the  Twelve  (Luke  vi.  12). 


248  ST.  MARK  8.  28-30.     X^k 

his  disciples,  saying  unto  them,  Who  do  men  say  that 

28  I  am?     And  they  told  him,  saying,  John  the  Baptist: 
and  others,  Elijah ;   but  others,  One  of  the  prophets. 

29  And  he  asked  them,  But  who  say  ye  that  I  am?     Peter 

30  answereth  and  saith  unto  him.  Thou  art  the  Christ.    And 

Who  do  men  say  that  X  am?  His  first  question  wasabout 
the  opinions  of  others.  The  reply  of  the  disciples  shewed  how 
different  were  the  impressions  produced  by  his  words  and  ^vorks. 
This  confirms  Mark's  representation  that  Jesus  had  avoided  any 
explicit  claim  to  Messiahship  thus  far,  the  reason  being  that  the 
popular  conceptions  of  the  office  were  largely  alien  to  Jesus'  own. 
A  mass  movement  among  the  Galilaean  peasantry,  started  by  an 
unmodified  impression  that  Jesus  was  such  a  Messiah  as  they  were 
expecting,  would  have  ruined  all  his  plans  (see  note  on  v.  33^ 

28.  And  they  told  him.  The  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead,  the 
Elijah  who  was  to  return  (Mai.  iv.  5\  one  of  the  line  of  the 
Prophets — these  were  some  of  the  estimates  formed  of  him. 
Matthew  adds  Jerentiah,  possibly  because  of  the  warning  note  in 
Jesus'  own  ministry.  These  were  all  thought  to  be  heralds  of  the 
coming  Kingdom. 

29.  But  who  say  ye  that  1  am  ?  Now  he  will  have  their  own 
view  :  '  But  ye — who  say  ye  that  I  am,'  as  the  order  of  the  words 
suggests  it. 

Peter  answereth:  with  that  characteristic  impulsiveness 
which  made  him  their  spokesman  as  a  rule. 

Thou  art  the  Christ.  Luke  '  the  Christ  of  God,'  Matt.  <the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living  God'  (xvi.  16).  But  the  confession 
is  the  same,  though  the  reports  differ  slightly  as  to  the  precise 
terms.  Allen  justly  remarks  that '  We  must  not  read  too  much  '  into 
the  confession  at  this  stage,  '  because  there  were  many  current 
conceptions  of  the  Messiah,'  in  which  Peter  and  his  fellows  were 
doubtless  more  or  less  involved.  Yet  the  root  and  essence  of  the 
matter  was  already  in  these  simple  men,  who  had,  by  a  gradual 
enlightening  of  their  moral  natures  (cf.  Matt.  xvi.  17)  through  con- 
stant intercourse  with  Jesus,  reached  the  momentous  conviction 
that  their  Master  was  more  than  'the  prophet  of  Nazareth,'  He 
was  that,  but  he  was  it  with  a  difference  which  made  him  the 
Anointed  of  God  for  the  setting  up  of  His  Messianic  Kingdom  in 
Israel. 

Mark  has  not  the  Benediction  pronounced  on  Peter  personally 
(xvi.  17) — proof  sufficient  that  the  Second  Gospel  was  not  written 
with  a  special  regard  for  Peter  or  a  '  Petrine  tendency,'  in  the 
interests  of  a  party  following  him.  A  record  genuinely  based  on 
Peter's  own  fiiemoraliilin  would  be  the  last  to  have  such  matter, 
for  he  would  be  silent  about  it. 


ST.  MARK  8.  31.     XMk  249 

he  charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no  man  of  him. 
And  he  began  to  teach  them,  that  the  Son  of  man  must  31 
suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and 

30.  charg'ed  tliem.  A  strong  word,  usuallj'  conveying  the 
idea  of  solemn  warning  :  cf.  i.  25,  iii.  12.  Silence  was  enjoined 
because  the  times  were  not  yet  ripe  for  a  public  and  general 
declaration  of  his  Messiahship.  To  utter  that  prematurely  was  to 
court  disaster. 

of  him:  i.e.  in  the  way  just  described. 

viii.  31-33.  Annoinicetnent  of  the  Passion  and  Rebuke  of  Peter 
(cf.  Matt.  xvi.  21-33  ;  Luke  ix.  22).  The  confession  has  been  made. 
The  root  of  the  matter  is  in  them,  and  seemingly  enough  to  admit 
of  his  subjecting  them  to  the  testing  of  their  faith  or  spiritual  trust 
in  himself  involved  in  the  utterly  strange  idea  of  a  Messiah 
rejected  by  Israel  and  suffering  even  unto  death.  The  time  will 
come,  though  it  is  not  yet,  for  the  declaration  of  the  claim  thus 
recognized.  But  first  they  have  to  face  the  immediate  future. 
What  is  involvedin  true  Messiahship  is  from  this  time  forth  disclosed 
to  the  disciples  step  b}'  step,  as  they  seemed  able  to  receive  it. 

31.  toegan  to  teacJi  them:  not  necessarily  then  and  there  (cf. 
Matt.  '  from  that  time  ').  This  marks  the  occasion  asan  important 
turning-point  in  Jesus'  work.  In  his  own  soul  he  had  been  facing 
the  issue  involved,  from  as  far  back  as  vii.  24  (cf.  iii.  6)  at  least. 
He  was  now  to  give  a  new  direction  to  his  iraininr  and  instructing 
of  the  Twelve. 

'  In  Matthew  the  word  "  show  unto  "  (deiknuciii)  is  used,  which 
may  well  mean  "  demonstrating  "  from  the  O.  T.'  (Braithwaite,  as 
above).  The  figure  of  the  suffering  '.Servant  of  the  Lord'  in 
Isa.  liii  vvould,  no  cjoubt,  be  the  main  theme  to  which  he  tried  to  turn 
their  attention.  To  judge  from  Luke  ix.  44  f.  his  '  special  source  ' 
does  not  seem  to  have  contained  a  reference  at  this  point  to 
Messiah's  coming  Passion,  though  Luke  himself  here  follows  Mark's 
lead  and  language  in  the  main. 

the  Son  of  man  must :  the  word  expresses  moral  necessity, 
the  Divine  plan  in  his  career.  '  Prophecy  points  this  way  and 
must  be  fulfilled '  (Wood).  It  is  used  also  on  other  decisive 
occasions  in  his  life,  as  Luke  especially  notices,  e.  g.  when  the 
consciousness  of  his  peculiar  relation  to  God  first  expresses  itself 
(Luke  ii.  49^  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  (Luke  iv.  43'^,  after 
his  resurrection  (Luke  xxiv.  26);  cf.  also  John  ix.  4.  For  'the 
Son  of  Man  '  see  note  after  ii.  12. 

suffer  many  thing-s,  and  be  rejected.  In  these  words  Mark 
has,  no  doubt,  the  figure  in  Isa.  liii  in  view  (cf  Ps.  xxii  :  sec  ix. 
12).  The  same  words  occur  also  in  Luke  xvii.  25,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  '  by  this  generation  '  ;  and  this  may  in  fact  have  been  the 


2  50  ST.  MARK  8.  31.     XMk 

the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after 

form  in  which  Jesus  at  this  stage  foreshadowed  his  rejection,  the 
more  explicit  details  which  follow — save  the  reference,  to  death — 
being  due  to  tradition,  thinking  in  terms  of  the  actual  event. 

rejected.  The  word  suggests  deliberate  official  rejection.  It 
is  used  in  the  Greek  of  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  which  may  here  be  in  view. 
In  ix.  12  'set  at  nought '  is  closer  to  Isa.  liii.  3  ;  cf.  Ps.  xxii.  6. 

elders  :  in  the  official  sense  of  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  the 
supreme  ecclesiastical  court  or  council  in  Jerusalem,  i,  e.  those 
members  of  that  body  who  were  neither  chief  priests  nor  scribes. 
They  might  be  laymen. 

chief  priests  :  the  most  distinguished  representatives  of  the 
Jewish  priesthood,  and  the  leading  members  of  the  supreme  court. 
They  belonged  to  the  sacerdotal  aristocracy,  and  were  mostly 
Sadducees. 

scribes :  the  professional  '  lawyers,'  mostly  Pharisees.  See 
on  chap.  i.  22  above. 

These  were  the  three  classes  that  made  up  the  membership  of 
the  Sanhedrin.  In  most  cases  where  they  are  named  together  in 
the  N.  T.  the  chief  priests  are  mentioned  first.  There  are  a  fevv 
cases  in  which  this  order  is  not  kept  (Luke  xx.  19,  in  addition  to 
the  instance  here\  and  only  two  in  which  the  chief  priests  are  not 
named  at  all  (Matt.  xxvi.  57  ;  Acts  vi.  12).  The  enumeration  is 
made  here  in  a  form  that  particularizes  each  of  the  three  parties  in 
the  Sanhedrin  as  involved  in  the  acts  referred  to. 

Such  explicitness  in  these  details  suggests  that  the  wording  of  this 
foreshadowing  of  the  Messiah's  sufferings  was  due  to  development 
in  Christian  tradition,  looking  back  in  the  light  of  events  familiar 
to  it.  The  wording  in  ix.  12  lacks  them  altogether.  It  is  quite 
probable  that  the  essential  ideas  of  Isa.  liii  were  now  applied  to 
himself  by  Jesus  in  converse  with  the  Twelve  (see  Wood,  as 
above,  and  Denney,  Jesus  and  fhe  Gospel,  pp.  181  ff.)  :  but  it  would 
be  psychologically  most  unnatural,  and  is  therefore  improbable,  that 
Jesus  should  go  into  more  explicit  details  on  the  first  occasion  of 
broaching  the  diffi'cult  and  repellent  subject  of  hisown  rejection  as 
Messiah,  than  on  the  later  occasions  on  which  he  set  himself  to 
prepare  their  minds  for  this  :  see  ix.  12,  31,  and  notes  there. 

and  be  killed :  words  confirmed  by  what  follows,  esp.  34-36. 

after  three  days:  so  again  in  ix.  31,  x.  34.  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  '  the  third  day  '  (xvi.  21).  But  the  two  expressions 
mean  the  same  thing  (sec  Matt,  xxvii.  63  f.  and  the  note  on  viii.  2)  ; 
and  here  they  may  simply  mean  (if  used  by  Jesus  himself)  a  brief 
interval,  as  in  xiv.  51,  xv.  29  ;  Luke  xiii.  32  ;  as  well  as  in  Hosea 
vi.  2,  which  was  perhaps  in  Jesus'  mind.  In  that  passage  Israel 
exclaims  'Come  and  let  us  return  unto  the  Lord.  .  .  .  After  two 
days  will  he  revive  us  :  on  the  third  day  he  will  raise  us  up,  and 


ST.  MARK  8.  32,  33.     XMk  251 

three  days  rise  again.  And  he  spake  the  saying  openly.  32 
And  Peter  took  him,  and  began  to  rebuke  him.  But  he  33 
turning  about,  and  seeing  his  disciples,  rebuked  Peter, 

we  shall  live  before  him  '  (cf.  Isa.  liii.  lo  f.).  There  the  LXX  has  the 
same  word  for  '  rise'  (auasteuai]  as  Mark  has  here  and  in  ix.  9  f., 
31,  X.  34,  not  the  more  usual  one  '  be  raised  up  '  1  egeti/ieiiai)  found 
in  Matt,  and  Luke  here  and  generally.  This  O.  T.  passage  seems, 
still  more  clearly,  to  determine  Jesus' use  of  after  (an  interval  of) 
three  days  '  in  his  saying  about  building  the  Temple  afresh  cited 
by  the  witnesses  against  him  in  the  hearing  before  the  Sanhedrin, 
xiv.  58),  where  the  interval  between  the  dissolution  of  the  material 
Temple  and  the  rearing  of  the  spiritual  counterpart  is  plainly  an 
indefinite  though  brief  one  (cf.  '  from  henceforth  '  or  '  presently  ' 
in  Matt.  xxvi.  64  ;  Luke  xxii.  69,  parallel  to  Mark  xiv.  62  with  the 
same  reference).  In  the  light  of  this  saying  touching  the  fortunes  of 
religion  in  Israel,  which  suggests  a  metaphorical  use  of  Hos.  vi.  2 
by  Jesus,  it  is  even  possible  that  his  use  of  'rise  again  after  three 
days '  (apart  from  what  follows  '  be  rejected '  in  Mark's  actual 
text)  did  not  originally  mean  'from  the  dead'  (as  in  ix.  9f.),  but 
rather  rising  again  from  a  fall  in  his  outward  fortunes,  i.  e.  rejec- 
tion for  a  season,  as  is  the  case  with  the  phrase  '  fall  and  rising 
again  of  many  in  Israel '  in  Luke  ii.  34.  In  any  case  the  passage 
in  Hosea  seems  to  have  fixed  for  Jesus  the  period  of  his  apparent 
defeat  by  his  opponents  in  Israel  as  a  short  one,  after  which  his 
cause,  both  for  himself  and  his  followers,  would  be  raised  up  in 
power,  on  the  lines  of  Isa.  liii.  10  ff.  (See  further  the  appended 
note  af"ter  verse  33.) 

he  spake:  rather  'was  speaking,'  began  to  utter  habitually 
(cf.  3i\  '  the  sentiment '  {h'f.  '  word  ')  just  expressed. 

openly  :  '  without  reserve,'  '  freely  '  and  in  plain  terms,  not  in 
parable  or  indirectly.  If  Jesus  had  not  been  wholl}'  silent  on  these 
things  before,  he  had  at  least  spoken  with  reserve  and  by  figure 
onlj',  e.g.  the  mention  of  the  bridegroom  being  'taken  away' — 
which  Mark  has  recorded  already  (ii.  10),  though  perhaps  too  early 
in  his  narrative. 

took  Mm  :  put  his  hand  on  him,  so  as  to  take  him  aside.  The 
idea  of  sufferittg,  of  what  betokened  failure,  in  the  case  of  him 
whom  he  had  just  confessed  to  be  the  Messiah,  was  abhorrent  to 
Peter.  He  will  take  him  apart,  out  of  the  hearing  of  others — so 
far  he  recollects  himself — and  remonstrate  with  him. 

rebuke  him:  the  words  are  given  by  Matthew  (xvi.  22): 
*God  have  mercj'  on  thee  (R.V.  margin\  Master  ;  this  shall  never 
be  thy  lot.' 

33.  turning'    about :     another    of   Mark's    vivid    strokes.       At 
Peter's  touch  and  speech  Jesus  turns  sharply  round,  to  see  if  the 


252  ST.  MARK  8.  33.     X^k 

and  saith,  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  :  for  thou  mindest 

rest  of  the  disciples  had  noted  what  was  passing.  And  when  he 
sees  that  it  is  the  case,  he  utters  his  rebuke  to  Peter  in  the  hearing 
and  for  the  warning  of  all.     Mark  does  not  '  spare  '  Peter. 

Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan :  the  very  words  used  by  Jesus 
in  the  Temptation.  In  Peter's  remonstrance  Jesus  saw  the  same 
temptation  to  follow  a  worldly  course  by  which  Satan  had  before 
tried  him  in  the  wilderness,  and  this  helps  to  explain  the  emotion 
and  severity  of  the  rebuke. 

mindest:  better  than  the  A.  V.  'savourest,'  an  old  English 
word,  derived  from  the  Latin  through  the  French,  meaning  to 
'relish'  and  so  'discern.'  Peter's  hasty  and  officious  act 
betokened  a  lack  of  spiritual  feeling  and  understanding — a  mind 
largely  swaj'ed  by  a  worldly  conception  of  Messiahship  and  far 
away  as  yet  from  the  mind  of  God. 

Appended  Note  on  '  Resurrection  on  the  Third  Day? 

One  cannot  avoid  asking  at  this  point,  '  How  did  Jesus  himself 
conceive  his  impending  rejection  by  Israel's  leaders  and  its  sequel 
for  the  Kingdom  and  for  himself?'  There  was  an  inevitable 
tendency  for  his  sayin.gs  on  the  matter  to  become  coloured  in 
tradition  by  the  details  of  what  actually-  happened,  and  by 
Christians'  own  later  outlook  after  his  resurrection  appearances. 
How  far,  then,  if  at  all,  has  this  tendency  operated  in  fact  on  the 
tradition  as  it  lies  before  us  in  our  Gospels?  A  very  thorough 
and  judicious  discussion  of  this  important  problem  is  contained  in 
a  paper  on  '  Resurrection  and  Parousia  as  predicted  by  Jesus,' 
printed  in  brief  form  in  the  private  Proceedings  of  the  Oxford 
Society  of  Historical  Theology  for  1915-16  ;  and  this  it  may  be 
well  here  to  summarize. 

The  writer,  the  late  W.  S.  Bradley,  starts  from  Jesus'  outlook 
at  the  very  last  stage  of  his  intercourse  with  the  Twelve,  as 
expressed  at  the  Last  Supper  in  the  words  '  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  Vine,  until  that  day 
when  I  drink  it  new  (or  "  in  fresh  fashion")  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God  '  (Mark  xiv.  25  and  parallels).  '  It  is  surely  a  striking  fact 
that  in  none  of  the  lines  of  tradition  about  the  institution  of  the 
Supper— the  Pauline,  the  Marcan,  the  Matthaean,  the  Lucan — is 
tiiere  any  single  reference  to  the  Resurrection.'  For  supposing 
that  Jesus  was  u-ont  to  distinguish  in  his  own  thought,  and  in  his 
teaching  to  his  disriples,  between  his  resurrection  '  after  three 
days'  and  his  abiding  reunion  with  his  disciples  at  \u.%  Parousia 
or  public  Return  in  power,  how  could  he  fail  to  make  some 
'  reference  at  this  critical  moment  to  His  expected  reappearance 
within  a  few  da3'S  '  to  those  he  was  then  addressing  ?  '  The  only 
natural  interpretation  of  the  facts  is  that  Jesus  was  confident  of 


ST.  MARK  8.  34.     XMk  253 

not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men.     And  he  34 

reunion  with  his  disciples  and  all  the  faithful  at  the  Messianic 
feast,  i.  e.  at  the  Parousia;  but  that  the  thought  of  a  preliminary 
return  by  private  appearances  was  not  with  him  at  all.' 

The  same  result  emerges  from  a  consideration  of  Jesus'  teaching 
about  the  right  attitude  of  disciples  towards  the  expected  Parousia. 
'  We  have  an  authentic  body  of  sayings  concerning  the  interval  of 
suspense  and  suffering  that  would  occur  before  the  Parousia  (e.  g. 
in  Mark  xiii.).  .  .  The  chief  requirement  is  persistent  loyalty,  the 
chief  peril  is  that  of  relapsing  into  unbelief.  But  once  again  we 
miss  any  reference  to  the  Resurrection,'  although  '  it  is  Jesus'  one 
object  to  hearten  the  disciples  to  endure.'  Indeed,  on  the  tradi- 
tional interpretation,  '  the  Resurrection  as  anticipated  bj' Jesus  can 
only  have  had  one  meaning — it  would  be  a  return  to  the  private 
circle  of  His  friends  after  a  very  short  time,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  encouraging  the  faithful  to  '  endure  '  till  the  Parousia  (itself  not 
very  far  distant).'  'We  can  only  conclude  that  Jesus  believed 
the  disciples  would  be  subjected  to  a  real  trial  of  faith.'  yet  'did 
not  refer  to  a  preliminary  reunion,  because  he  did  not  expect  it.' 
They  were,  he  gave  them  to  understand,  'to  go  on  their  way 
without  Him  until  the  divinely  appointed  hour  should  arrive  for 
His  return  in  Glory.'  Thus,  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing,  it 
becomes  most  '  significant  that  predictions  of  the  Resurrection  are 
never  conjoined  with  predictions  of  the  Parousia.  We  never  find 
them  fused  into  a  single  sentence,  which  might  exhibit  the  two 
moments,  at  once  in  their  separateness  and  in  their  connection.' 
They  were,  in  fact,  two  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  event;  and 
that  being  so,  they  coincided  in  time  to  Jesus'  thought,  and  that 
an  indeterminate  time,  though  one  not  far  distant. 

At  first  sight,  indeed,  it  seems  to  us,  with  our  Western  modern 
literalism  of  language — and  so  it  came  after  tlie  event  to  seem  to 
the  disciples  also — that  resurrection  '  after  three  days '  or  '  on  the 
third  day  '  ^^as  Matt,  and  Luke)  was  a  quite  definite  prediction  of 
time.  But  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  Jesus,  who 
disclaimed  exact  knowledge  of  the  date  of  the  Parousia  (xiii.  32), 
knew  that  he  would  •  rise  again  on  the  third  day''  in  any  literal 
sense.  The  presumption  is  that  he  here  used  '  after  three  days  ' 
in  the  same  sense  as  in  his  promise  that  he  would  build  again  the 
Temple  'in  three  days'  (xiv.  58,  xv.  29V  That  is,  he  adopted  the 
expression  from  its  current  use  for  a  short  interval,  and  with  par- 
ticular reference  to  its  occurrence  in  this  sense  in  Hosea  vi.  i  f.  (a 
passage  taken  eschatologically  in  the  Targum  of  Jonathan)  ;  and 
l)e  did  so  in  order  to  indicate  generally,  in  conventional  language, 
the  quite  short  period  that  must  elapse  between  iiis  death  and  the 
fulfilment  of  God's  counsel  to  bring  in  the  Kingdom  through  the 
self-sacrifice  of  His  'Servant,'  according  to  the  foreshadowing  of 


2  54  ST.  MARK  8.  34.     XMk 

called  unto  him  the  multitude  with  his  disciples,  and  said 

such  a  method  in  Isa.  liii.  An  exact  parallel  to  this  usage,  one 
may  note,  is  afforded  by  Jesus'  forecast  in  Luke  xiii.  32  of  the 
latter  part  of  his  ministry,  some  time  before  leaving  Galilee  : 
'  Behold,  I  cast  out  demons  and  perform  cures  to-day  and  to- 
morrow, and  the  third  day  I  am  perfected '  (  =  consummate  my 
vocation^.  Such  was  the  poetic,  S3'mbolic  manner  in  which  Jesus 
was  wont  to  speak:  and  accordingly  the  'third  day'  is  to  be 
identified  with  '  that  day  which  no  man  knoweth,'  not  even  him- 
self, the  day  of  his  return  in  Power. 

The  distinction,  then,  which  we  habitually  read  into  Jesus' 
references  to  his  rising  again  'on  the  third  day'  and  his  return  in 
power,  at  no  long  interval  after  his  seeming  departure  in  weak- 
ness, is  in  fact  due  to  our  reading  his  words  in  the  light  in  which 
his  disciples  came  to  view  them,  when  events  appeared  to  have 
given  one  set  of  those  references  a  quite  specific  fulfilment,  in  the 
disciples'  own  experiences  of  him  as  risen  and  with  them. 
According  to  Mark,  followed  by  Matthew,  these  appearances  took 
place  in  Galilee,  and  so  were  predicted  both  by  Jesus  and  the 
angel  at  the  tomb  (xiv.  28,  xvi.  7  ;  cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  i6j  ;  but  Luke, 
who  places  the  only  appearances  he  records  in  Jerusalem, 
evidently  following  his  special  and  most  trusted  source,  ignores 
any  promises  of  a  meeting  in  Galilee  such  as  Mark's  tradition 
contained.  These  phenomena  fit  in  well  (argues  Bradley)  with  the 
above  arguments.  The  earliest  resurrection  appearances  probably 
did  occur  in  Galilee  :  '  in  the  darkest  hour  of  cowardice  and  despair 
this  glory  dawned.  But  surely,'  felt  Christians,  '  Jesus  himself 
must  have  foreseen  this.'  And  so  a  saying  to  this  effect  arose,  in 
the  course  of  tradition  (cf.  notes  on  ix.  g(.),  reflecting  this  feeling 
on  their  part.  This  prediction  '  constitutes  an  epitome  of  the 
state  of  mind  of  the  apostolic  church.  It  is  an  ex  cveutu  prophecy 
illustrating  the  attempt  of  the  Church  to  adjust  itself  to  the 
unexpected  event . . .,  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  in  Galilee.' 
'  The  New  Testament  is  the  record  of  a  progressive  attempt  to 
adapt  life  and  thought  to  the  unexpected  fact  of  the  Resurrection  ;  and 
the  process  culminates  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,' where  'the  Parousia 
was  not  an  apocalypse  of  Jesus  to  "  the  world  "  but  to  "  his  own," 
not  a  deferred  hope  but  a  "  fulfilled  "  experience.' 

viii.  34-ix.  I.  Self-denial,  even  unto  death,  the  condition  of  dis- 
cipleship  and  of  eternal  life  in  the  Kingdom  (cf.  Matt.  xvi.  24-28  ; 
Luke  ix.  23-7). 

34.  the  multitude:  cf  vii.  14  and  note  there.  Jesus  is  thus 
represented  as  addressing  a  wider  audience  than  the  twelve, 
so  shewing  that  the  principles  to  be  enunciated  are  of  general 
application  to  all  who  would  call  him  Master  (i.  e.  all  Christians). 


ST.  MARK  8.  35.     XMk  255 

unto  them,  If  any  man  would  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me.    For  35 


This,  however,  is  rather  out  of  keeping  ivith  the  historical  sittta- 
tioii,  one  of  liabitual  privac}',  and  may  be  due  to  the  use  of  the 
words  in  Christian  tradition  :  cf.  the  next  notes  and  that  on  ix.  i. 
'  With  the  multitude,'  then,  is  probablj'  a  secondarj'  touch  which 
arose  in  oral  teaching.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  both 
Matt,  and  Luke  have  similar  matter  in  other  contexts,  shewing 
that  while  they  followed  Mark  here — and  so  created  'doublets' 
in  their  gospels — their  own  special  sources  (in  addition  to  Mark") 
contained  this  teaching  at  other  points  in  Jesus'  ministry,  and  not 
in  this.  In  Luke,  which  is  m.ore  historically  arranged  than  Matt., 
this  general  teaching  on  self-denial  and  on  confessing  Jesus 
(rejected,  though  he  was,  of  the  influential)  comes  in  two  distinct 
contexts,  both  later  on  in  the  ministry.  This  fits  in  with  the 
representation  of  the  Transfiguration  story  in  Luke  (i.  e.  in  his 
special  source),  where  there  is  no  reference  to  Jesus'  death  (as 
in  Mark)  during  the  descent  from  the  mount  (cf.  note  on  '  began 
to  teach'  in  verse  31). 

Accordingly  everything  points  to  some  at  least  of  the  matter  in 
Mark  viii.  34-ix.  i  being  antedated,  by  attraction  to  the  first 
context  in  which  the  Master's  own  path  of  suffering  is  dealt  with: 
see  notes  on  '  take  up  his  cross,'  and  on  v.  38,  ix.  i. 

deny  himself:  not  in  the  modern  conventional  sense,  to 
discipline  one's  tastes  and  impulses,  but  in  a  deeper  one  :  not 
'  deny  himseli  somet/iing,'  but  '  renounce  self  as  the  supreme  end 
of  one's  thoughts  and  interests,  '  know  not  and  consider  not ' 
oneself  in  practice.  It  is  not  the  'self-denial'  of  the  ascetic,  but 
the  '  self-forgetfulness  '  of  the  true  missionary  or  social  worker, 
that  is  in  question,  of  one  who  like  Paul  '  counts  not  life  dear,' 
that  he  may  do  God's  whole  work — a  glad  S.  Francis,  Livingstone, 
or  Josephine  Butler. 

take  up  his  cross :  Luke  adds  '  daily,'  probably  owing  to  the 
didactic  use  of  this  great  saying  in  Christian  teaching — to  which 
the  very  use  of  this  phrase,  unexplained  by  the  context,  may  here 
be  due.  Crucifixion  was  the  Roman  mode  of  capital  punishment  ; 
and  before  the  last  stage  of  it  was  reached,  the  condemned  man, 
who  had  already  said  good-bye  to  life,  had  to  carr}'  his  own  cross 
to  the  place  appointed.  Whether  the  expression  v/as  already  a 
current  or  proverbial  one  (cf.  Luke  xiv.  27),  we  cannot  say.  But 
the  tenses  used  imply  a  decisive  act  of  this  'saying  good-bye'  to 
one's  old  self  or  life,  in  the  very  act  of  shouldering  the  symbol  of 
death,  followed  by  a  consequential  process  of  carrying  it,  more  or 
less  prolonged.  The  special  form  of  the  simile  here  suggested  is 
that  of  a  leader  taking  such  a  step,  and   being  followed   in  pro- 


256  ST.  MARK  8.  35.     XMk 

whosoever  would  save  his  ■'  life  shall  lose  it ;  and  whoso- 
ever shall  lose  his  ^Hfe  bfor  hny  sake  and'  the  gospel's 

*  Or,  soicl 

Old  Lat.,  Syr.  Sin.,  Arm.,  Etli.  have  only  for  the  (or  my)  Gospel's 
sake 

cession  by  his  companions  in  this  march  of  outward  humiliation, 
as  long  as  it  might  last.  In  Heb.  xii.  2  we  find  this  figure  applied 
by  a  later  disciple  to  the  Christian  course:  '  looking  unto  Jesus, 
the  pioneer-leader  and  consummator  of  faith  (in  the  sense  of 
"  seeina;  Him  that  is  invisible,"  xi.  27%  who  for  the  joy  that  was 
set  before  him  (="life"  here"^  endured  the  cross,  despising 
shame.'  The  essential  idea  in  Jesus'  words  is  that  his  followers 
'  must  live  as  men  on  their  way  to  execution  '  (Allen) — as  detached 
from  worldly  aims  and  ambitions  as  such  must  needs  be.  This 
idea  is  already  expressed  in  that  of  self-renunciation  which  has 
just  preceded  ;  and  the  use  of  this  seemingly  technical  phrase 
may  be  due  to  tradition  alone.  Such  a  saying  about  taking  up  the 
cross  must  have  carried  with  it  repellent,  terrifying  ideas  ;  and 
could  hardly  have  passed  without  comment  on  the  part  of  the 
Twelve  at  this  stage  (see  the  parallel  case  in  ix.  9  f.). 

35.  life:  or  'soul,' as  in  the  margin  of  the  R.  V.  The  word 
rendered  'soul'  {psyche)  is  different  from  that  rendered  'spirit' 
{pneuma).  'Soul'  is  the  term  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the 
self,  the  conscious  human  life.  It  means  life  embodied,  as  the 
other  means  life  animating.  'Spirit  is  life  as  coming  from  God  ; 
soul  is  life  as  constituted  in  man.  Conscquentl}^  when  the 
individual  life  is  to  be  made  emphatic,  "soul''  is  used'  ( Laidlaw, 
TIte  Bible  Dodrine  of  Man ,  p.  69\  Thus,  too,  in  connexions  like 
the  present,  the  latter  term  may  express  the  self  in  two  different 
aspects,  a  lower  and  a  higher,  or  'life'  as  mere  sentient  existence 
and  as  the  good  tif  life — human  life  worthy  the  name.  Mark's  is 
probably  the  original  setting  of  this  far-reaching  declaration  about 
saving  and  losing  one's  life,  which  occurs  elsewhere  in  other 
phrasing  in  Malt.  x.  39 ;  Luke  xvii.  33  ;  John  xii.  25.  It  is, 
indeed,  one  that  bore  repeating,  and  that  might  be  called  forth 
by  more  than  one  occasion. 

Tfor  my  saksT;  words  omitted  by  vcr}- ancient  authorities,  and 
perhaps  due  to  the  parallel  in  Matt.  xvi.  25  (cf.  x.  39)  and  in  Mark 
X.  29  itself,  where  the  context  (as  well  as  all  MSS.)  favours  their 
genuineness.  The  two  oldest  of  these  authorities  (Syr.  Sin.  and 
O.  L.  ^)  have  ' for  my  Gospel '  (cf.  'my  words '  below  ,  which  looks 
like  an  alternative  development  of  'for  the  Gospel's  sake'  to  that 
of  the  bulk  of  our  MSS. 

'"and"'  the  g'ospel's:  or  'for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel '  (seeaboveV 
Mark  alone  has  this  expression.  To  judge  from  the  analogy  of 
i.  14  f.,  where  'the  Gospel'  =  'the  Gospel  of  God  '  'the  Gospel 


ST.  MARK  8.  36-38.     XMk  257 

shall  save  it.  For  what  doth  it  profit  a  man,  to  gain  the  36 
whole  world,  and  forfeit  his  ^^life?  For  what  should  37 
a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  "^  life  ?     For  whosoever  38 

"•  Or,  soul 


of  the  Kingdom'  (Matt.  iv.  23,  cf.  ix.  35),  there  is  here  the  same 
imphcit  reference  to  the  Kingdom  (cf.  Luke  xviii.  29)  as  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  'Good  news,' much  as  in  Isaiah  xl.  3ff.,  Ixi.  if.  (see 
notes  on  i.  14  f.V  It  may,  then,  well  be  the  original  reading  in 
Mark  (cf  x.  29),  one  not  adopted  by  Matthew  or  Luke  only 
because  they  preferred  the  reference  to  Christ  himself  as  the 
object  of  devotion,  according  to  their  several  lines  of  tradition. 
Hence  it  is  hard  to  explain  as  due  to  the  unconscious  action  of 
later  tradition.  Thus  it  is  needless  to  see  here  any  influence  of 
Paulir.ism  on  Mark ;  for  it  is  the  prophetic,  not  the  Pauline,  sense 
of  'the  Good  News'  that  is  in  question,  i.e.,  that  which  also 
stamps  Peter's  preaching  (Acts  ii-v,  x.  36)  and  his  Epistle.  It 
is  practically  equivalent  to  '  my  words  '  in  verse  38. 

36.  g'ain  the  whole  world.  The  contrast  passes  now  from  the 
life  saved  and  the  life  lost,  to  the  world  gained  and  the  life 
forfeited.  The  term  '  world  '  here  has  not  the  deep,  mystical 
sense  it  has  in  the  Johannine  writings.  It  is  the  'world'  in  the 
common  sense  of  tlie  word,  the  material,  visible  world  or  system 
of  things,  with  all  it  has  to  offer.  Jesus  himself  had  been  tempted 
to  '  gain  the  world '  by  forsaking  his  proper  mission  and  forgetting 
his  relation  to  God.  '  Forfeit '  is  the  proper  rendering  in  the 
clause  '  forfeit  his  l!fe.'  For  the  word  expresses  not  mere  loss, 
but  loss  coming  as  penalty  brought  on  oneself  The  primary 
reference  in  life  'lost'  and  '  saved'  or  'gained'  is  eschatological, 
i.e.  to  loss  in  the  present  'age'  or  order  (by  martyrdom  if  need 
be)  balanced  by  ^ain  or  restoration  of  life  on  a  higher  plane,  in  the 
Age  to  Come,  viz.  the  Messianic  Kingdom. 

37.  For  what  should  a  man  give  in  exchange:  or  'as  an 
exchange,'  i.  e.  as  purchase  price,  ransom  :  cf.  Ecclus,  xxvi.  14  for 
this  word.  It  is  an  argument  for  the  profitlessness  of  the  gain  of 
the  whole  world,  from  the  fact  that  it  is  at  the  cost  of  a  loss  that 
cannot  be  repaired.  Once  the  life  is  gone,  nothing  can  buy  it 
back  :  even  tliis  world,  if  gained  now,  will  not  be  available  then 
for  a  price. 

38.  For  whosoever  shall  toe  ashamed  of  me,  &c.  A  fresh 
consideration  is  added,  the  question  of  lo^-ally  to  him  and  his 
teaching  in  the  perspective  of  his  own  future  exaltation.  Then 
shame  shall  be  met  by  shame,  and  he  who  disowns  shall  himself 
be  disowned.  This  goes  beyond  what  the  context  seems  to  demand, 
and  is  not  supported  b^'  Matthew  (though  it  has  a  somewhat  similar 

S 


258  ST.  MARK  9.  I.     XMk 

shall  be  ashamed  of  me  and  of  my  words  in  this  adulterous 

and    sinful  generation,   the  Son  of  man  also  shall  be 

ashamed  of  him,  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory  of  his 

9  Father  with  the  holy  angels.     And  he  said  unto  them, 

reference  to  Christ's  coming  in  glory  for  judgement),  while  Luke 
seems  simply  to  follow  Mark  here.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
the  same  thought  elsewhere,  but  in  different  contexts  from  each 
other  and  from  Mark.  The  connexion  by  another  'for',  added 
to  those  above,  is  very  loose.  For  '  my  words'  cf.  xiii.  31,  also 
Matt,  vii,  24  ff.,  Luke  vi.  47  ff.,and  see  note  on  '  and  the  Gospel  s  ' 

in  verse  35.  u  ui     •      fU^ 

in  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation :  probably  in  the 
sense  of  spiritual  infidelity  to  God  (viii.  12,  with  Matt,  xii  39, 
xvi.  4),  who  in  the  Prophets  is  compared  to  the  husband  of  His 
people  Israel :  see  Isa.  i.  21  ;  Hosea  ix.  i  and  passim.  The 
present  generation  is  tacitly  contrasted  with  the  coming  Messianic 
era,  as  being  evil  in  its  underlying  egoism  or  worldliness  :  cf. 
Acts  ii    40,  '  save  yourselves  from  this  crooked  generation. 

wHen  he  cometh.  The  N.T.  speaks  of  a  'coming'  or 
'  presence  '  (parousia)  of  Christ  as  an  event  of  the  future,  a  visible 
return  of  Jesus.  It  is  connected  variously  with  a  raising  of  the 
dead— at  first  of  the  righteous  only— a  judgement  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  power  and  glory  (Matt.  xxiv.  3, 
27  ff.  ;  Mark  xiii.  26  f.  ;  i  Thess.  iii.  13,  iv.  15,  v.  23  ;  2  Thess.  11. 
I,  8  ;  I  Cor.  i.  7,  xv.  23  ;  James  v.  7  ;  i  John  11.  28,  &c.;,  and 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels.  '  1  he 
"glory"  anticipated  is  clearly  that  of  the  Divine  Presence' 
(Swete).  That  Divine  'glory,'  or  Slickinah  radiance,  will  clothe 
Jesus  as  Messiah  ('in  thy  glory,'  x.  37),  when  'the  Son  of  man  ' 
returns  in  the  character  of  Judge,  as  pictured  in  £;/or/»lxn.  af.  on 
the  basis  of  Dan.  vii.  10  f.     The  accompanying  angels  also  point 

back  to  Dan.  vii.  10.  r  n/r    .1 

Mark's  wording  is  here  more  primitive  than  that  of  Mattliew 
and  Luke,  each  of  which  has  secondary  features.  The  general 
thought,  including  the  reference  in  the  next  verse  to  the  certain 
and  not  distant  victory  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  proclaimed  by 
'  The  Son  of  Man,'  now  in  humiliation  and  rejection  but  destined 
to  come  again  in  glory— a  victory  in  which  faithful  disciples  would 
share— is  well  authenticated  by  its  congruity  with  the  circle  of 
ideas  in  Isa.  liii,  which  seems  to  mould  all  Jesus'  thoughts  as  to  his 
Ministry  at  this  stage  and  in  its  final  issues  (see  Introduction, 
'  The  Christ  of  Mark's  Gospel '). 

1.  And  he  said  unto  them.  This  verse  really  belongs  to  the 
preceding.     The  mal-arrangement    has    been    due    to  takmg   the 


ST.  MARK  9.  I.     XMk  259 

Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  be  some  here  of  them  that 
stand  by,  which  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death^  till  they 
see  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power. 

words  'And  he  said  unto  them' — meaning  the  disciples  only — 
as  the  introduction  to  a  new  paragraph.  It  may  have  been 
occasioned  by  the  idea  that  what  Jesus  said  about  his  '  coming ' 
iiad  its  fulfilment  in  the  transfiguration. 

shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death,  &c.  That  is,  experience  it : 
of.  Job  XX.  18  ;  Ps.  xxxiv.  8  ;  Heb.  ii.  9.  The  announcement  re- 
corded in  this  verse  is  given  in  all  three  Synoptists  (cf.  xiii.  30),  but 
in  rather  varying  form.  In  Luke,  very  broadly,  'till  they  see  the 
Kingdom  of  God  ; '  more  precisely  in  Matthew  '  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom';  most  definitely  in  Mark, 
'  till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God  (already)  come  in  power.'  This 
is  what  some  of  the  bystanders  are  to  see  in  their  lifetime.  The 
reference  is  probably  to  the  reversal  of  the  lot  of  the  Son  of  Man 
alluded  to  in  the  preceding  verse.  How  was  this  prediction  ful- 
filled ?  Some  say,  in  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  and  the  first  triumphs 
of  the  Gospel.  Others,  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
supersession  of  the  ancient  Jewish  dispensation.  The  latter  inter- 
pretation best  suits  the  indication  of  time,  and  was,  indeed,  a 
mighty  coming  'in  power'  of  the  New  Divine  order  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  in  the  world.  But  whether  this  is  all  or  exactly  what  the 
words  mean,  and  whether  they  are  due  in  part  at  least  to  tradition, 
is  another  question,  and  one  which  can  best  be  considered  in 
common  with  the  eschatological  discourse  in  ch.  xiii.,  cf.  xiv.  62: 
see  xiii.  30  in  particular  and  the  Appended  Note  after  ix.  13.  To 
judge  from  the  way  in  which  Mark  records  the  story  of  the 
transfiguration  which  follows  immediately— dwelling  on  the  short 
interval  between  it  and  this  solemn  saying,  and  on  certain  of  its 
hearers  as  the  witnesses  of  that  occurrence — it  seems  that  our 
Evangelist  himself  intended  his  readers  to  see  in  ch.  ix.  2-8  a 
partial  fulfilment  or  foretaste  of  the  manifestation  of  'the  Kingdom 
of  God  '  of  which  Jesus  spoke.  That  is,  he  took  ix.  i  in  the  light 
of  viii.  38,  with  its  reference  to  the  '  coming  '  of  the  Son  of  Man 
in  glory,  of  which  his  temporarj'  glorification  before  chosen 
witnesses  on  the  Mount  was  the  earnest  or  guarantee  :  so  2  Peter 
i.  16-19. 

ix.  2-8.  The  Transfiguration  (cf.  Matt.  xvii.  1-13  ;  Luke  ix. 
28-36).  This  exceptional  event,  v/hich  fills  much  the  same  place 
in  relation  to  the  later  stage  of  Jesus'  Ministry  as  the  Baptism  to 
its  opening,  is  recorded  by  all  three  Synoptists.  The  three  reports 
give  substantially  the  same  account  of  the  incident,  though  each 
has   its  own  features.     The  resemblance  between  Matthew   and 


26o  ST.  MARK  9.  2.     XM^ 

2  And  after  six  days  Jesus  taketh  with  him  Peter,  and 
James,  and  John,  and  bringeth  them  up  into  a  high 
mountain  apart  by  themselves :  and  he  was  transiigured 

Mark  is  particularly  close,  while  the  narrative  of  the  third  Gospel 
has  here  more  of  a  character  of  its  own,  which  gives  it  high  value 
for  us.  Thus  Luke  alone  mentions  the  facts  that  Jesus  ascended 
the  mount  to  pray,  and  that  it  was  when  he  was  pra\'ing  that  he 
became  transfi>:^ured  ;  that  Moses  and  Elijah  '  talked  of  Jesus' 
departure  {exodus)  which  he  was  about  to  accomplish  at  Jerusalem'; 
and  that  '  Peter  and  they  that  were  with  him  were  heavy  with 
sleep ' — which  suggests  that  the  events  happened  during  the  night 
(cf.  Luke  ix.  37).      He  is  clearly  not  here  using  Mark  alone. 

2.  after  six  days.  So  also  in  Matthew  :  in  Luke  'about  eight 
da3^s  ' — a  less  precise  form  of  statement,  but  one  not  inconsistent 
with  the  other.  Probably  both  phrases  mean  'a  week  later'  :  see 
xiv.  I. 

Peter,  and  James,  and  Jolin.  The  same  select  group  as  in 
the  house  of  Jairus. 

a  hig'h  mountain.  Luke  says  simply  'the  Mountain'  (see 
notes  on  iii.  13,  viii.  27  above).  No  doubt  a  spur  of  Mount  Hermon, 
a  '  high  mountain'  indeed,  for  it  rises  over  9,000  ft.  ;  near  enough 
to  Caesarea  Philippi  to  be  easily  reached  in  a  few  days,  and  in  all 
respects  a  fit  scene  for  such  a  retirement  into  solitude. 

transfigured.  Luke  says  the  change  came  over  him  when 
praying  fi.x.  29),  as  it  was  also  when  he  was  praying  that  the 
heavens  opened  to  him  at  his  baptism  (iii.  21  .  The  change  is 
described  by  Mark  as  a  'transformation'  (Luke  says  simply  the 
fashion  of  his  countenance  was  altered')  or  'transfiguration,' 
as  all  the  English  versions  from  Wycliflfe's  have  agreed  to 
render  it.  The  O.  T.  has  its  parallel  case  in  the  shining  of  the 
face  of  Moses,  due  to  his  speaking  with  the  Lord  on  the  Mount 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  29)  ;  cf  Matt.  here.  So  also  the  face  of  Stephen 
was  seen  'as  it  had  been  the  face  of  an  angel'  (Acts  vi.  15), 
There  are  other  historic  instances,  too,  of  a  transfiguration  of  the 
countenance  due  to  rapt  communion  with  God.  The  most  striking 
analogy  to  the  Transfiguration,  and  in  some  ways  the  best  com- 
mentary on  its  original  meaning  for  Jesus  himself,  is  the  story  of 
•St.  Francis  of  Assisi  on  Monte  Alverna,  in  t!ie  upper  valle3'of  the 
Arno,  whither  he  retired  with  four  chosen  companions  for  a  special 
season  of  prayer  and  communion  with  Christ's  Passion.  In  the 
'  Legend  of  the  Three  Companions  '  (c.  69)  we  read  that  '  Whilst 
in  seraphic  ardour  of  desire  he  was  uplifted  toward  God.  and  was 
transfigured,  by  the  sweetness  of  partaking  in  His  Passion,  into 
the  likene.ss  of  Ilim  who  of  His  exceeding  love  was  willing  to  be 
crucified,'  Francis  had  a  vision  so  intense  that  it  had  bodily  effects 


ST.  MARK  9.  3-4.     XMk  261 

before  them  :    and  his  garments  became  glistering,  ex-  3 
ceeding  white ;  so  as  no  fuller  on  earth  can  whiten  them. 
And  there  appeared  unto  them  Elijah  with  Moses :  and  4 

of  a  sympathetic  order  i  the  stigmata  or  nail-prints  of  the  Crucified), 
which  remained  with  him  to  his  death. 

3.  glistering-:  gleaming  or  radiant.  The  word  occurs  in  the 
LXX  of  the  'flashing  of  burnished  brass  or  gold  (i  Esdras  viii.  56; 
2  Esdras  viii.  27)  or  steel  (Nahumiii.  3)  or  of  sunlight  (i  Mace.  vi. 
39),'  as  Dr.  Swete  notices. 

exceeding  white.  For  this  description  of  Jesus'  garments  as 
sharing  his  personal  glorification,  compare  that  of  the  raiment  of 
the  Ancient  of  Days  in  Dan.  vii.  4,  as  'white  as  snow.'  It  is  the 
whiteness  of  light  that  seems  to  be  in  Mark's  mind,  cf.  Matt.  '  his 
garments  became  white  as  the  light.'  So  Luke,  whose  special 
source  (like  Matthew's)  dwelt  on  the  change  in  Jesus'  countenance, 
has  '  white,  dazzling.' 

4.  there  appeared  unto  them.  Mark  (and  Matthew)  conceives 
this  vision  as  granted  to  the  disciples  also,  indeed  treats  all  as 
occurring  for  their  benefit  in  the  main  ;  compare  'before  them'  in 
verse  2.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  in  keeping  with  his  special  source 
(to  wliich  he  adheres,  presumably  as  of  higher  authority  in  his 
eyes,  when  it  and  Mark  do  not  agree),  has  'And  behold,  there 
talked  with  him  two  men,  which  were  Moses  and  Elijah  ;  who 
appeared  in  glory,  and  spake  of  his  departure  which  he  was  about 
to  fulfil  at  Jerusalem.  Now  Peter  and  they  that  were  with  him 
were  borne  down  by  sleep  ;  but  when  they  were  fully  awake, 
they  saw  his  glory,  and  the  two  men  that  stood  with  him.'  Here 
it  is  implied  (i)  that  the  Vision  was  at  first  vouchsafed  to  Jesus 
alone,  as  he  prayed  ;  (2)  that  in  the  midst  of  this  experience  of 
his,  while  he  was  speaking  with  Moses  and  Elijah,  the  disciples 
awoke  and  began  to  share  in  it  indirectly,  seeing  Jesus  irradiated 
with  a  strange  glory  ;  (3)  that  they  saw  also  the  two  men  with 
whom  he  was  speaking.  Now  it  is  only  in  this  last  point  that  the 
situation,  so  described,  compels  the  view  that  the  appearance  of 
Moses  and  Elijah  was  objectivelj'  presented  to  the  disciples'  senses. 
Otherwise  it  would  be  satisfied  by  the  assumption  that  all  else 
reached  the  spectators  only  as  reflected  in  Jesus  himself,  the  prime 
recipient  of  the  revelation  in  question.  But  this  third  feature  may 
easily  have  arisen  in  the  course  of  tradition  as  an  inference  from 
the  comment  which  Peter,  in  his  half-dazed  state  of  wonder, 
blurted  out  as  he  watched  his  Master,  transfigured  in  face  b}'  the 
ecstasy  of  communion  with  his  great  spiritual  predecessors  in  the 
way  of  the  Cross  (see  '  The  meaning  of  the  Transfiguration,'  after 
the  note  on  verse  81,  and  heard  his  words  of  rapt  utterance 
addressed  to  others  than  themselves.     The  names  '  Moses '   and 


5 


262  ST.  MARK  9.  5.    XMk 

they  were  talking  with  Jesus.  And  Peter  answereth 
and  saith  to  Jesus,  Rabbi,  it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here : 
and  let  us  make  three  ^  tabernacles ;  one  for  thee,  and 

^  Or,  booths 

'  Elijah  '  may  well  have  been  overheard  on  his  lips,  and  so  deter- 
mined the  form  of  Peter's  'answer'  to  the  impression  received 
Aeain  as  regards  the  Voice  out  of  the  cloud  (the  passing  of  which 
between  the  group  and  the  moon  interrupted  the  disciples'  sight  of 
Jesus,  bringing,  it  may  be,  Jesus'  own  vision  to  a  dose  by  a 
sudden  change  from  vivid  light  to  darkness),  it  is  possible  that  it 
simply  represents  in  the  form  of  words  the  impression  produced 
on  the  disciples'  minds  by  the  timing  of  that  seeming  heavenly 
intervention— a  cloud  being  sometimes  regarded  as  the  manilesta- 
tion  of  the  Divine  Presence.  Such  an  interpretative  development 
would  very  naturally  arise  in  the  course  of  tradition. 

Of  course  some  of  this  interpretation  is  speculative  :  but  some 
such  reconstruction  of  the  original  conditions  lying  behind  our 
divergent  narratives  seems  needful.  In  any  case  the  essential 
impression  for  the  three  disciples,  conveyed  by  their  e'cperiences 
on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  was  a  PO^^^f"' .'=^"*l™^*^°" '".^ 
their  belief  that  their  Master  was  verily  the  Messiah  of  God,  and 
as  such  greater  even  than  Moses  and  Elijah.  ,     ,       ^ 

ElljaH  with  Moses:  the  representatives  of  the  two  great 
stages  of  O.T.  revelation,  Prophecy  and  the  Law  This  colloca- 
tion represents  the  unity  in  spirit  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
pointing  forward  to  Messiah  as  the  falfiller  (ct.  Deut.  xvm.  15, 
cited  in  Acts  vii.  37)  of  their  essential  message.  Elijah  is  named 
first  because  he  is  Messiah's  forerunner  (Mai.  iv.  4).  In  one  Rabbinic 
saying  of  the  first  century  a.  d.  we  find  the  above  conjunction  : 
'  God  says  to  Moses,  When  I  bring  the  Prophet  Elijah,  you  shall 
both  come  together.'  Perhaps  they  are  the  two  '  witnesses  meant 
also  in  Rev.  xi.  i  ff.,  which  has  probably  a  Jewish  basis  behind  it 
If  so,  there  too  they  appear  as  witnesses  who  are  rejected  and 

^"^^lalklng  witH  Jesus.      Luke  gives  as  subject  (ix.  3O  that  of 
which  Jesus  had  just  begun  to  speak  openly  viz.  his  coming  death 
For  the  Cross  was  spiritually  foreshadowed  in  their  careers ;  so 
that  it  was  not  really  out  of  keeping  with  Jesus    Mess.ahsh.p  as 
witnessed  to  alike  by  Prophet  and  Lawgiver:  cf.  John  v.  39,  43- 

Peter  answereth  :  i.  e.  to  the  appeal  of  the  situation. 

Rabbi.  Mark  gives  the  original  Arama.c  word  ;  for  which 
Malthew  gives  '  Lord,'  and  Luke  a  word  of  his  own,    Master. 

tb«e  tabernacles:  or  'booths,'  made  by  intertwining  the 
branches  of  trees.  He  spoke  vaguely,  with  no  very  clear  idea 
beyon.l  that  of  doing  honour  to  the  heavenly  visitants,  and  to  his 


ST.  MARK  9.  6-8.     XMk  263 

one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Elijah.      For  he  wist  not  6 
what  to  answer ;  for  they  became  sore  afraid.    And  there  7 
came  a  cloud  overshadowing  them  :  and  there  came  a 
voice  out  of  the  cloud,  This  is  my  beloved  Son  :  hear  ye 
him.     And  suddenly  looking  round  about,  they  saw  no  8 
one  any  more,  save  Jesus  only  with  themselves. 


Master  whom  they  thus  recognized.  Surely  it  was  '  good  '  for  him 
and  his  brethren  to  be  where  they  were,  in  the  presence  of  this 
august  trio. 

6.  he  wist  not  what  to  answer.  The  same  is  said  of  the 
chosen  three  at  the  Agony  in  the  Garden  fxiv.  40).  A  scene  so 
wholly  outside  his  experience,  so  overwhelming  in  its  unwonted 
glory  and  mystery,  dazed  Peter.  He  spoke  he  knew  not  what, 
overcome  by  terror,  in  which  also  James  and  John  shared — '  for 
they  became  sore  afraid.'  Such  is  Mark's  view  of  the  case,  which 
he  could  not  explain  to  himself  otherwise. 

7.  there  cazne  a  clond.  As  if  in  answer  to  Peter's  impulsive 
proposal,  a  cloud  swept  across,  overshadowing  them  all.  Matthew 
conceives  it  as  '  a  bright  cloud'  :  but  Mark's  description  'over- 
shadowing them'  does  not  point  that  way.  In  the  O.T.  the 
'  cloud  '  is  associated  with  special  manifestations  of  God,  as  in  the 
wilderness  (Exod.  xiii.  21,  xvi.  10,  xix.  9,  16,  xxiv.  15,  xl.  34  ; 
Lev.  xvi.  2  ;  Num.  xi.  25)  and  at  the  dedication  of  the  Temple 
(1  Kings  viii.  10).  The  later  Jewish  writings  indicate  that  there 
was  a  belief  that  it  was  to  reappear  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah 
(2  Mace.  ii.  8). 

a  voice  ont  of  the  cloud  :  the  Divine  voice  (Bath  Qol),  heard 
also  at  the  Baptism  of  Jesus.  There  it  was  for  Jesus  himself; 
here  it  is  addressed  to  the  disciples.  This  'hear  ye  him'  may  be 
meant  to  echo  Deut.  xviii.  15,  and  speaks  of  a  new  duty  and  a  new 
relation.  The  men  of  the  old  Israel  had  listened  to  Moses  and  the 
Prophets.  Those  who  were  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  new  Israel 
are  to  listen  to  Christ,  the  final  utterer  of  God's  mind  (Hob.  i.  i). 

This  is  my  beloved  Son:  or  'my  Son,  the  Beloved,'  like 
'  Mj'  Son,  my  Chosen,'  in  Luke  ix.  35,  R.  V.  Both  are  current 
Messianic  titles  ;  compare  Eph.  i.  6,  '  in  the  Beloved  one,'  and  see 
journal  of  Theological  Studies,  xx.  339  ff. 

8.  suddenly  loobing^  round  about,  they  saw  no  one.  The 
scene  ended  as  unexpectedly  as  it  had  begun.  All  vanished  as  at 
a  touch,  and  onl3'  Jesus,  as  they  had  known  him,  was  seen  (cf. 
Matt.  xvii.  7f.). 

The  report  of  this  incident,  resting  upon  the  converging  testi- 
mony of  three  narratives,  each  with  its  own  marks  of  independence, 


264  ST.  MARK  9.  8.     X^k 

and  at  least   one   of  ihem  reproducing   recolleclions  of  an    eye- 
witness, cannot  be  explained  away  as  a  purely  .deal  "^-''-f  ^V 
apologue  with  a  didactic  purpose,  a  mere  mythical  growth.     But 
ftTs  quite  possible,  even  likely,  that  certam  features  of  this  sto  y 
are   secondary,   added   to  the   original    facts   when   handed  on  in 
tradition   by  those  deeply  interested  in   the  apostolic  witnesses. 
The  analogy  of  the  storV  of  the  Baptism,  told  differently  in  the 
three  Synoptic  Gospels  as  regards  the  objective  nature  of  the  Dove 
and    the  Voice-Mark  alone   making  them  experiences  of  Jesus 
only— suggests    that  the  like   tendency  to   involve  others   in   the 
ceniawfsion  of  Moses  and  Elijah  would  here  operate.     In  any 
case  the  event  meant  most  for  Jesus  himself.      He  ascended  the 
mountain  partly  at  lenst  to  pray,  and  thereby  to  prepare  himself 
Ltthis  crisis  of  his  ministry,  for  the  path  of  suffering  lying  before 
him      A  strange  vision  of  glory  came  to  him  when  he  was  so  en- 
.Lged.  and  strengthened  him  for  his  course       Something  ot  this 
hScompanions  doubtless  read  in  his  face  and  mien  ;  and  probably 
he  share^d  more  of  it  with  them  by  words,  for  they  too  had  reached 
fcrisis  in  their  calling.     They  had  made  confession  of  their  fa  th 
and  they  had  been  staggered  by  the  announcement  of  his  lot  of 
Suffering      They  did  not  see  all  that  happened  on  the  moun  ;  for 
Luke  tells  us  that  they  were  '  heavy  with  sleep,'  and  that  .    was 
only  'when  they  were  fully  awake'  that   'they  saw  h.s  glory 
But  what  they  did  see  and  hear  was  an  important  element  in  their 

raining.  ^^^^  „,eamng  of  the  Tyansfigtiraiion. 

'Wellhausen  and  Loisy  suggest,  without  sufficient  reason   that 
the    whole    story    may  be    a    Resurrection-appearance   of  Chn.t 
'transferred  to  this  point  in  the  narrative  to  bnng  out  the  s.gn.fi- 
cance  of  the  Great  Confession  ;see  summary  in  Montefiore,  i    217). 
The    Transfiguration   is  really   best  understood   as    a   mystic  ex- 
perience of  self-dedication   and    Divine    assurance,  ^^hich  Jesus 
actually   went  through  soon  after  the  decisive  disclosure  to   h  s 
d    dples  of  what  lay'in  store  for  him      Though  the  story  'S  told 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  disciples '-at  least  in  Mark  and 
MaUhew-'its    true   character    as   ^uke  hints    lies    in   i^s  being 
a  record  of  the  inner  life  of  Jesus  (cf.  E.   \JnAerhi\\   The  MysUc 
Way   I    1 17  f.).     Perhaps  for  that  reason  even  the  other  d.sc.ples 
weTe  n;t  to  hear  of  it,  till  after  the  Resurrection '  (H.  G.  Wood, 
in  Peake's  Coiiim.  on  the  Bibk  .  t    1    >       ..^-.„r,t 

The  above  characterization  is  based  mai^aly  on  Luke  s  account 
narticularlyix.3of.,  rather  than  on  the  Marcan  narrative.  This 
Tat  er  knows  nothing  of  the  topic  of  conversation  between  Jesus 
'  d  '  eS  a?ong  with  Moses  'being  the  shadow  of  the  cross  now 
Jllfing  on  hts  pfth  (according  to  Luke,,  but-^to  judge  by  the 
is  inles'  quesUon  when  descending  the  mount-assumes  tha 
El   Ih-    pretence  as  the  Forerunner  of  Messiah  was  the  main  point 


ST.  MARK  9.  8.     XMk  265 

of  the  experience  just  vouchsafed  to  Jesus  and  themselves.  In 
view  of  this  divergence  of  conception,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the 
historical  basis  of  the  story,  which  has  manifestly  undergone 
certain  changes  in  the  various  circles  of  Christian  tradition  re- 
flected in  our  Gospels,  was  a  midnight  vigil  of  prayer  on  the  part 
of  Jesus,  of  a  character  and  in  circumstances  of  companionship 
almost  exactly  anticipating  that  in  Gethsemane  fxiv.  32  ff.).  There 
is  no  suggestion  in  this  case,  any  more  than  the  other,  that  Jesus 
sought  the  solitude  for  his  disciples'  sake  rather  than  his  own.  If 
one  may  venture  to  seek  a  motive  in  Jesus'  soul  at  this  crisis,  one 
would  suggest  that  the  strong  recoil  of  the  disciples'  minds  from 
the  idea  of  his  rejection  had  renewed  some  of  the  conflict  in  his 
own  breast,  the  reality  of  which  seems  hinted  in  the  severity  of 
the  rebuke  to  Peter  in  viii.  33.  One  may  compare  in  this  connexion 
Jesus'  words  in  Luke  xxii.  28  as  to  his  'trials'  or  'temptations.' 
On  this  assumption  we  may  read  Luke's  account  as  follows.  As 
Jesus  wrestled  in  prayer  with  the  enigma  of  his  future,  a  path  of 
rejection  by  God's  chosen  People — his  own  people — and  of  suffer- 
ing seeming  to  lead  up  to  death  itself,  his  whole  being  was  caught 
up  and  absorbed  in  the  spiritual  conflict.  The  final  victory  came 
to  him  only  with  the  sure  preception  that  such  a  lot  was  indeed 
the  very  method  by  which  his  Father  had  wrought  redemption  for 
his  People  all  along.  So  was  it,  not  only  in  the  picture  of  '  the 
Servant '  in  Isaiah,  but  also  with  otre  side  of  the  story  even  of 
Israel's  greatest  deliverer,  her  Lawgiver-prophet  Moses,  whose 
superlative  'meekness'  (Num.  xii.  3),  in  accepting  the  burden  of 
Israel's  stifT-neckedness  and  sins,  constituted  his  truest  greatness 
(see  his  intercession  for  Israel  in  Exod.  xxxii),  and  of  the  fiery 
prophet  of  Carmel,  who  learned  his  deepest  lessons  from  God  in 
exile  and  weakness  at  Horeb.  This  was  the  lesson  common  to 
both  their  careers,  and  so  probably  the  one  before  Jesus'  mind  at 
this  time  (see  the  conversation  touching  John  as  Elijah,  as  Jesus 
and  the  three  descend  the  mount).  This  was  not,  indeed,  the  aspect 
of  its  national  heroes'  careers  which  Judaism  was  wont  to  read  out 
of  its  inspired  Scriptures.  Yet  the  story  of  Moses'  life,  as  distinct 
from  his  legislation,  is  in  fact  full  of  the  spirit  of  the  prophets  :  it 
was  there  to  be  read,  if  only  the  eye  to  discern  it  was  also  present 
(as  in  the  author  of  T/ie  Assumption  oj  Moses,  just  before  Jesus' 
day,  who  speaks  of  what  Moses  'suffered  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  Red 
Sea,  and  in  the  Wilderness  during  forty  j-ears,'  iii.  1 1).  So  we  see 
clearly  from  Moses'  career  as  summarized  by  Stephen  (Acts  vii. 
20  ff.),  himself  full  of  the  martyr  spirit.  Thus  Jesus  was  now  be- 
coming the  '  pioneer-leader  of  faith '  in  the  path  of  spiritual  heroism 
and  self-forgetfulness  (as  he  is  set  forth  in  Hebrews  xi-xii),  who 
by  his  travail  of  soul  first  read  the  full  secret  of  God's  deeper  truth 
and  will  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  real  'Messianic  Secret'  of  the 
Son  of  Man,  as  it  has  been  called  in  recent  limes,  though  in  a  very 
different  sense. 


266  ST.  MARK  9.  9.     X^k 

9      And  as  they  were  coming  down  from  the  mountain,  he 
charged  them  that  they  should  tell  no  man  what  things 

Viewing  himself,  then,  as  the  'Prophet'  whom  Moses  foretold 
that  God  should  '  raise  up '  from  Israel,  as  He  had  raised  him 
(cf.  Acts  iii.  22,  vii.  37  niarg.'),  Jesus  now  reached  afresh,  and 
more  triumphantly  than  before,  a  clear  conviction  that  the  likeness 
between  himself  and  Moses  would  include  the  element  of  rejection 
and  apparent  failure  for  a  time,  and  that  he  too  must  '  suffer'  and 
so  only  '  enter  into  his  glory,'  in  his  Father's  good  providence. 
Thus  the  meaning  of  Jesus'  spiritual  fellowship  with  Moses  and 
Elijah  in  Mark  agrees  with  that  assigned  to  it  explicitly  in  Luke, 
viz.,  his  coming  Passion,  as  this  again  with  what  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented, in  the  same  special  source  here  used  by  Luke,  as  teaching 
his  disciples  after  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  (xxiv.  26  f.  esp. 
'beginning  from  Moses''. 

Accordingly  this  was  the  original  significance  of  the  Trans- 
figuration storj',  the  spiritual  counterpart  to  which  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  comes  rather  later  in  its  story  (xii.  20  ff.),  in  connexion 
with  the  desire  of  'Greeks'  to  see  Jesus.  It  was  one  personal  to 
Jesus  himself  in  the  first  instance,  but  it  had  also  an  indirect  effect 
upon  the  faith  of  the  inner  circle  of  Three,  who  felt  more  sure 
tlian  ever  that  their  Master,  whom  they  had  seen  in  so  glorious  an 
hour  of  spiritual  rapture  and  of  fellowship  with  the  spirits  of  Moses 
and  Elijah,  was  verily  the  Christ,  whatever  dark  and  perplexing 
words  he  might  let  drop  touching  the  immediate  future.  They  had 
no  inkling  at  the  time  of  the  topic  of  Jesus'  communings  in  spirit 
with  the  august  personages  whom  thej'  overheard  him  addressing 
in  that  awe-inspiring  hour  of  m^'stic  rapture.  But  they  descended 
the  mount  with  faith  confirmed,  though  in  another  sense  than  that 
of  the  confirmation  which  their  Master  himself  had  derived  from 
his  experiences  there. 

ix.  9-13.  The  *■  rising  front  the  dead'  and  ihe  conting  of  Elijah 
(cf.  Matt.  xvii.  9-13).  Of  what  passed  as  Jesus  and  the  Three 
were  on  their  way  down  from  the  mountain  Luke  tells  us  nothing: 
probably,  then,  it  was  not  in  the  special  source  which  he  followed 
in  what  precedes,  and  whicii  seems  to  have  viewed  the  me.ining  of 
the  episode  rather  differently  (see  above).  He  simply  remarks 
that  these  witnesses  of  the  Transfiguration  'held  their  peace,  and 
told  no  man  in  those  days  any  of  the  things  which  they  had  seen  ' 
(Luke  ix.  36). 

9.  as  they  were  coming'  down.  From  Luke's  '  next  day '  (xi. 
37)  we  may  infer  that  the  descent  took  place  the  day  after  the 
Transfiguration,  and  early  in  the  day. 

charged  them.     The  injunction  to  silence  which  had  been 
laid  on  others  touching  the  marvellous,  as  a  ground  forjudging  of 


ST.  MARK  9.  IO-12.     X»ii^  267 

they  had  seen,  save  when  the  Son  of  man  should  have 
risen  again  from  the  dead.     And  they  kept  the  saying,  10 
questioning  among  themselves  what  the  rising  again  from 
the  dead  should  mean.     And  they  asked  him,  saying,  n 
*The  scribes  say  that  Elijah  must  first  come.     And  he  12 
said  unto  them,  Elijah  indeed  cometh  first,  and  restoreth 

"•  Or,  How  is  it  that  the  scribes  say  .  .  .  come  ? 

his  person  and  mission,  is  now  laid  upon  the  chosen  three.  But 
in  this  case  there  is  a  limit,  till  '  the  Son  of  Man  be  risen  again 
from  among  the  dead  ' — an  idea  the  wording  of  which  occurs  here 
only  in  Mark.  The  whole  clause,  then,  or  all  from  '  he  charged 
them,'  may  be  secondary  ;  see  next  note  but  one  and  Appended 
Note  after  viii.  33.  Luke  simply  refers  to  their  keeping  silence 
'  in  those  days.' 

10.  kept  the  saying'.  The  analogy  of  vii.  3f.,  18  (cf.  Apoc.  ii. 
14  ff.)  favours  '  kept  fast  hold  of,'  in  the  sense  of  'observed,'  though 
the  old  Latin  of  D  and  Jerome  have  here  a  stronger  word  for  the 
verb  than  in  ch.  vii.,  so  making  it  equivalent  to  '  kept  silent'  (as 
in  the  Gk.  of  Dan.  v.  12  in  Theodotion).  The  meaning  is  much 
the  same  in  either  case.    They  observed  their  Master's  prohibition. 

questioning  among-  themselves.  The  order  in  the  Greek  lays 
stress  on  '  among  themselves'  (only).  Though  they  told  no  man 
of  the  vision,  among  themselves  they  discussed  the  wording  of  the 
injunction,  as  regards  the  'rising  again  from  out  the  dead'  as 
applicable  to  Jesus.  It  suggested  thoughts  of  his  death — an  idea 
which  they  could  not  entertain,  not  being  able  to  enter  into  their 
master's  mind  in  the  matter  (cf.  notes  on  viii.  31-33).  But  perhaps 
the  tradition  on  which  Mark  here  draws  has  added  unconsciously 
this  feature  to  the  original  facts  and  their  tradition  (cf.  Luke).  For 
it  not  only  anticipates  but  goes  beyond  the  guarded  teaching  which 
follows  in  verse  12.     See  also  the  note  on  viii.  33  and  ix.  31. 

H.  they  asked  him.  Thej'  had  a  difficulty,  brought  home 
anew  by  the  presence  of  Elijah  on  the  Mount  of  Transfigura- 
tion, as  to  Jesus'  Mcssiahship— now  their  faith.  The  scribes 
(founding  no  doubt  on  Mai.  iii.  i,  iv.  5)  taught  that  Elijah  was  to 
come  before  the  Messiah  himself. 

How  was  it  that  Elijah  had  not  yet  come  to  Israel  ?  The  verse 
may  be  read  'How  is  it  that  the  Scribes  say  .  .  .?'  as  the  marg. 
of  the  R.  v.,  cf.  28  (where  also  Matt,  has  '  Why  &c.').  ii.  16. 

12.  Elijah  indeed  cometh  first.  Jesus  replies  that  it  is,  indeed, 
as  the  scribes  said.  Elijah  was  to  come  before  the  Messiah,  to 
'  restore  all  things,'  that  is,  to  initiate  a  great  moral  renovation  of 
Israel  which  would  prepare  the  way  for  Messiah  (Mai.  iii.  2-4,  iv. 
6).     •  Israel  will    not   fulfil  the  great   Repentance    before   Elijah 


268  ST.  MARK  9.  13.     X^k 

all  things  :  and  how  is  it  written  of  the  Son  of  man,  that 
13  he  should  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at  nought?    But 


comes'  (Pirke  Rabbi   Eliezer,  xliii).     But  he  had  come   in  the 
person  of  John  the  Baptist  (cf.  Luke  i.  17  ;  Matt.  xi.  14V 

and  how  is  it  written  of  the  Son  of  man,  &c.  For  the  Son 
of  Man  see  Appended  Note  after  ii.  12.  This  second  half  of  verse 
1,2  seems  to  come  in  awkwardly,  as  interrupting  the  sequence 
between  12*  and  13  ;  in  Matt,  the  order  of  the  two  is  transposed 
and  the  wording  is  different. 

But  perhaps    the  difficulty  of  this  abrupt  turn    of  thought    is 
enlianced  for  us  by  its  interrogative  form,  in  which  Jesus  takes 
occasion  from  their  questioning  him  about  Elijah  to  question  them 
about  something  he  is  anxious  to  bring  home  to  their  unreceptive 
minds.     So  he  avails  himself  of  the  opening  suggested  by  their 
virtual  reference  to  the  Scripiuyal  forecast  (to  which  the  Scribes 
pointed)  of  the  return  of  Elijah,  as  among  the  events  by  which  the 
Messianic  Kingdom  will  be  ushered  in,  to  add  :  '  Yes,  and  there  is 
another  scriptural  problem  in  this  connexion,  namely  how  Scripture 
pictures  suffering  and  rejection  as  part  of  Messiah's  lot.'     Or,  as 
Hort  puts  this  tactful  turn  of  thought :   '  Yes,  Prophecy  spoke  truly 
there  (i.  e.  as  to  Elijah's  return).     But  it  also  spoke  truly  when  it 
foretold  that  the  Messiah  must  suffer.''     '  The  former  prophecy  the 
Jews  made  much  of:  the  latter  they  generally  ignored  (in  spite  of 
Isa.  liii.  Sec.) ;  but,  says  our  Lord,  the  one  prophecy  is  as  much 
to  be  believed  as  the  other.'     Having  thrown  out  this  searching 
suggestion  by  the  wa}',  as  it  were,  Jesus  does  not  himself  pursue 
it  further,  but  leaves  it  to  work  in  his  hearers'  minds— not  again 
naming  suffering  luito  death,  for  which  they  had  proved  so  unready 
in  viii.  31-33,  but  hinting  it  through  John's  case.     There  is  real 
verisimilitude  in  this  method  of  gradually  gaining  over  the  minds 
of  the  leaders  among  the  Twelve  to  the  idea  which  was  so  hard 
for  all  to  receive.     The  specific  reference  in  the  words  'and  be 
set  at  nought'  may  be  to  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  'the  stone  which  the 
builders  rejected,   the  same   was  made  the  head  of  the  corner,' 
cited  a  little  later  by  Jesus  in  argument  with  the  leaders  of  Judaism 
in  Jerusalem  (Matt.  xxi.  42,  cf.  i  Peter  ii.  7) ;  for  in  Acts  iv.  11 
the  verb  'set  at  nought'  appears,  as  here,  in  place  of  'rejected' 
(cf.  Ps.  xxii.  6  (in  LXX),  and  Is.  liii.  6  (Sym.),  vvhere  forms  of  the 
same  word-root  are  u=ed  in  Messianic  connexions).     The  applica- 
tion of  this  and  other  O.  T.  Scriptures  touching  sufferings  to   'the 
Son  of  Man,'  plainly  identified  with  'the  Messiah '_  by  Jesus  in  con- 
verse with  his  disciples  since  Peter's  Confession,  is  not  stated  quite 
so  definitely  as  the  usual  wording  '  written  of,'  employed  here  also 
in  the  R.  V.,  suggests,  but  rather  as  virtually  present  in  the  original 
statements,  as  'with  reference  to'  {epi]  him. 


ST.  MARK  9.  13.    XMk  269 

I  say  unto  you,  that  Elijah  is  come,  and  they  have  also 
done  unto  him  whatsoever  they  listed,  even  as  it  is  written 
of  him. 

13.  Elijah  is  come.  What  Scripture  foreshadowed,  and  was 
generally  expected,  in  the  case  of  Elijah,  has  been  fulfilled  (in  the 
person  of  John;  ;  but  not  just  as  was  looked  for.  For  he  came  in 
a  guise  different  from  what  men  were  expecting  ;  and  so  they 
treated  him,  in  their  blindness,  'just  as  they  liked' — an  O.  T. 
expression  for  irresponsible,  self-willed  action  (e.g.  i  Kings  ix.  i, 
X.  13  ;  Ps.  cxv.  3  ;  2  Mace.  vii.  16).  It  was  the  aloof  attitude  of 
the  leaders  of  Judaism  that  enabled  Herod  to  treat  him  as  he  did. 
But  although  John,  i.  e.  he  who  came  '  in  the  spirit  and  power  of 
Elijah'  I, Luke  i.  17),  in  the  end  suffered  thus,  nevertheless  he  was 
the  Elijah  of  Prophecj',  and  did  the  work  assigned  to  him  (see  next 
note). 

Why,  then,  should  not  the  prophecies  touching  Messiah  receive 
fulfilment  through  the  like  experience  of  suffering  at  the  hands  of 
the  leaders  of  an  unprepared  {eople  ?  Such  is  the  tendency  of  the 
argument,  though  it  is  not  drawn  out  explicitly. 

even  as  it  is  written  of  him.  The  three  Apostles  would 
understand  that  Jesus  identified  Elijah  with  John  (Matt.  xvii.  13). 
On  an  earlier  occasion,  indeed,  Jesus  had  pointed  to  this  identifica- 
tion (Matt.  xi.  14").  But  where  is  it  '  written  '  that  Elijah  was  to 
suffer?  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  Jesus  spoke  with  reference 
simply  to  the  statements  made  in  the  O.  T.  on  the  sufferings  of 
prophets  generally.     The  reference  is  a  definite  one. 

Traces  of  the  idea  of  Elijah  as  one  whose  faithful  witness  was 
at  first  rejected  by  God's  People  ma^'  be  found  in  the  refeience  to 
the  '  two  witnesses  '  or  martyrs  in  Rev.  xi.  i  ff.,  which  is  probably 
based  on  an  earlier  Jewish  writing  where  Elijah  is  thought  to  be 
one  of  the  two  heralds  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  described  as 
about  to  dawn.  A  suggestive  analogy  to  such  a  Jewish  writing 
touching  Elijah  is  furnished  by  the  Apocryphal  '  Mart3'rdom  of 
Isaiah  '  lying  behind  the  Christianized  apocalyptic  book  known  as 
the  Asceyision  of  Isaiah.  But  it  is  improbable  that  any  such  writing 
is  here  in  view.  It  looks,  rather,  as  if  Jesus  saw  in  the  lot  of  the 
typical  figure  of  God's  '  righteous  servant ' — rejected  and  wrong- 
full3'  treated  b}'  men,  even  unto  death — as  depicted  in  Isa.  liii.,  a 
foreshadowing  of  John  (not  exclusively,  but  inclusivelj',  as  a  prime 
example  of  his  class,  'the  prophets,'  cf.  Lukexi.  49  f.,  vii.  26  f.).  This 
hypothesis  would  help  toexplain  the  fact,  otherwise  difficultto  under- 
stand, that  in  spite  of  the  arresting  prominence  of  this  aspect  of  the 
Servant  of  the  Lord  in  Isa.  xl.  ff. — especially  to  an  eye  such  as 
that  of  Jesus — he  does  not  seem  originally  to  have  expected  any- 
thing but  acceptance  for  his  own  Good   News  of  the  Kingdom. 


2  70  ST.  MARK  9.  14-     X^^ 

14      And  when  they  came  to  the  disciples,  they  saw  a  great 

For  if  at  first  he  read  its  fulfilment  for  that  generation  as  having 
Ilreadv  occurred  in  lohn,  so  that  the  redemptive  fruit  of  h.s  fa.th- 
Sness  even  unto  dekh  might  "-v  be  looked  i^^rjn  Israel  srecep- 
tiveness  of  soul  to  his  message,  as  continued  in  h.s  onvh  Messianic 
Min"strv  Tesus  would  naturally  begin  his  preaching  with  high 
hopes  of  in  ^.mediate  breaking-in  of  the  Kingdom,  with  no 
further  need  for  suflering  in  the  cup  of  its  prophets,  least  of  all  n 
Mess^h's  own.  How  fitlv  would  Isa.  liu.  7-9  g've  /n^^^ing  o 
the  statement  hat  men  did  un.o  John  'whatsoever  they  listed' ! 
But  nowTesus  had  gathered  from  bitter  experience  that  rejection 
was  to  be  even  Messiah's  way  of  bringing  in  the  Kingdom. 

Well  may  H  G  Wood  observe  that  the  fact  '  that  Jesus  regarded 
Join  a  fSfilling  the  ministry  of  Elijah  is  of  great  -Portance  for 
Understanding  how  he  came  to  anticipate  H'%°X? fcf  Matf  x^ 
were  sent  in  the  '  wisdom'  of  the  Heavenly  Father  (cf-  Matt.  xi. 
76  xVrLuleJ'itsi-SS^.  See  further  the  Parableofthe  Husband- 
men  and  notes  on  xii.  i. 

ix  1^-20  HeaUn!^  of  the  Demoniac  Boy  (M  att.  xvii.  14-20  LkMx. 
o,  4;^  Mark  s  narrative  is  graphic  and  circumstantial.  The 
nLr'ati^es  of  Matthew  and  Luke  are  shorter.  Yet  both  give  some 
TarSars  not  mentioned  by  MarL  The  dramatic  and  symbohc 
contrast  of  the  two  scenes,  on  the  Mount  and  on  Jesus  return  to 
he  world  of  human  life  below,  which  Raphael's  genms  caught  and 
translated  into  visible  form  in  his  picture  on  this  theme  was 
probabi;  present  to  certain  of  the  first  .C^nstians  and  helps  to 
explain  the  preservation  of  this  '^"ej- incident.  Espec^dydoes^^^ 
exDlain  the  length  at  which  Mark  relates  it,  with  the  aid  of  Feter  s 
:r.?'d'Ll';A-i...  touches  „o.s,„rcdb,.h.co„„^ 


vivid  memory,  vvitn  louuuc:^  u^.  0..^..^^  ."-',,     f    ,  Th^^  narallel 

tradition  implied  also  in  Matt,  and  especially  Luke     JJ^  PJ[^^'^ 
with  Moses' case  in  Ex.  xxxii.  Divine  communion  mthe_  Mount 
and    confusion  ar 
present  to  their  m 
meaning  of  which 


with  Moses'  case  in  Ex.  xxx.i,  u.vine  com.uuxuu..  ■';"—■:-- 
and    confusion  and    evil  among  men    below,   was   also    Pe^haps 
nrLnt  to  the"r  minds.     Some  find  too  in  the  section  features  the 
'eaning  of  which  remains  obscure,  and  which  -ggest  to  t   em  tha 
,e  original  setting  of  the  healing  of  the    Demoniac    boy  wa     not 


exacth'  what  Mark  gives  us.  But  in  the  notes  whicn  louow, 
most  if  not  ail,  of  them  seem  to  find  a  natural  solution.  Both 
7a«:  and  Luke'in  large  degree  ignore  l^^^y^Zw'^^r^^i 
the  incident  as  otherwise  known  to  them  (in  their  other  cmei 
source)  b'egan  more  abruptly  :  in  Particular  they  omit  al  re  erence 
to  the  presence  of  Scribes  engaged  in  discussion  with  the  disciples 
This  feature:however,  just  because  it  has  -  ^^-^XTtTsp^cia 
follows,  may  well  be  part  of  the  circumstantiality  of  the  special 

'^^::zix:'^^r'^i^;^^  now  to  the 


ST.  MARK  9.  15-17.     XMk  271 

multitude  about  them,  and  scribes  questioning  with  them. 
And  straightway  all  the  multitude,  when  they  saw  him, 
were  greatly  amazed,  and  running  to  him  saluted  him. 
And  he  asked  them,  What  question  ye  with  them  ?  And 
one  of  the  multitude  answered  him,  '^  Master,  I  brought 

^  Or,  Teacher 

place  they  had  left  for  the  time.  None  of  the  Apostles  had 
remained  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain.  Jesus  and  the  three  found 
them  now  in  the  midst  of  a  crowd  of  people,  and  engaged  in  a 
discussion  with  certain  scribes.  These  scribes,  who  belonged 
probably  to  the  district,  seized  an  opportunity  which  presented 
itself  for  damaging  the  disciples  of  Jesus  in  the  eyes  of  the  public. 
questioning' witli  them :  '  arguing  with  them.'  The  incident 
of  the  discussion  with  the  scribes  is  omitted  both  bj'  Matthew  and 
by  Luke.  The  matter  at  issue  was  .ipparently  the  failure  of  the 
disciples  to  effect  a  certain  cure.  This  gave  the  scribes  an  opening 
to  throw  doubt  on  '  the  authority  over  unclean  spirits  '  (vi.  7)  which 
Jesus  was  said  to  have  given  them.  Their  failure  in  this  case  may 
well  have  been  a  perplexity  to  the  disciples  themselves,  making  it 
difficult  for  them  to  answer  the  scribes. 

15.  greatly  amazed  :  the  word  is  verj'  strong,  and  is  found 
only  in  Mark.  He  uses  it  when  he  tells  us  that  Jesus  was  'greatly 
amazed'  in  his  Agony  (xiv.  33\  and  again  when  he  reports  how 
the  women  were  '  amazed '  when  they  entered  the  Lord's  tomb 
(xvi.  5,  6  ;  cf.  Acts  iii.  10).  What  caused  the  '  amazement '  on  this 
occasion?  Some  think  that  the  cause  was  the  opportuneness  of  his 
sudden  appearance.  But  perhaps  the  real  point  is  that  the  afore- 
mentioned scribes  had  given  the  people  to  understand  that  *  the 
Prophet  of  Nazareth  '  had  prudently  retired,  to  save  himself  and 
his  special  intimates  from  gathering  danger,  and  would  be  seen  no 
more. 

16.  lie  asked  them.  He  took  no  notice  of  the  scribes,  the  main 
disputants,  but  turned  to  the  people,  seeing  they  bad  some  difficult 
matter  in  hand,  and  asking  them  what  it  was  that  they  were 
discussing  with  the  disciples. 

17.  one  of  the  multitude  answered.  The  reply  to  the  inter- 
rogation of  Jesus  comes  from  an  individual  in  the  crowd,  and  from 
the  one  most  concerned. 

Master.  Here  again  in  the  sense  of  'Teacher.' 
X  broug'ht  unto  thee  my  son.  The  father  had  come  expect- 
ing to  find  Jesus  himself  there,  but  had  had  to  be  content  with 
the  disciples.  Matthew  refers  only  to  the  application  to  the  dis- 
ciples (xvii.  16),  Luke  tells  us  that  the  boy  was  the  man's  '  only  ' 
child  (cf.  vii.  12,  viii.  42). 


272  ST.  MARK  9.  18-21.     X^k 

18  unto  thee  my  son,  which  hath  a  dumb  spirit;  and 
wheresoever  it  taketh  him,  it  '^  dasheth  him  down :  and 
he  foameth,  and  grindeth  his  teeth,  and  pineth  away : 
and  I  spake  to  thy  disciples  that  they  should  cast  it  out ; 

19  and  they  were  not  able.  And  he  answereth  them  and 
saith,  O  faithless  generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with 
you  ?  how  long  shall  I  bear  with  you  ?  bring  him  unto 

20  me.  And  they  brought  him  unto  him :  and  when  he 
saw  him,   straightway  the  spirit  ^tare  him  grievously; 

21  and  he  fell  on  the  ground,  and  wallowed  foaming.  And 
he  asked  his  father,  How  long  time  is  it  since  this  hath 

*  Or,  rendeth  him  ^  Or,  convulsed 

a  dunxb  spirit.  He  could  cry  out  (Luke  ix.  39),  but  could  not 
utter  articulate  sounds.  It  appears  from  Jesus'  words  that  the 
unclean  spirit  was  also  deaf  (ix.  251.  The  two  generally  went 
together  ;  cf.  the  case  in  Dccapolis  i^vii.  32).  What  is  said  of  the 
spirit  describes  the  condition  of  the  afflicted  bo3% 

18.  wheresoever  it  taketli  him.  The  boy  was  the  victim  ol 
fits,  which  were  of  extreme  violence,  frequent  occurrence  ('oft- 
times,'  ix.  22\  and  of  a  kind  that  might  come  upon  him  anywhere 
without  warning.  They  were  the  convulsive,  recurrent,  perhaps 
periodical,  seizures  of  an  epileptic.  So  Matthew  represents  the 
father  as  sa^'ing  '  he  is  epileptic  '  (xvii.  i5\ 

Tlie  combined  accounts  of  the  three  Synoptists  give  a  vivid 
picture  of  the  effects  of  these  seizures.  The  word  rendered 
'  pineth  away'  is  also  used  of  the  withering  of  the  hand  of  the 
man  in  the  synagogue  (iii.  i),  of  the  plant  that  had  no  root  (iv.  6), 
of  grass  (Jas.  i.  11). 

O  faithless  g^eneratiou,  how  long-,  &c.  Jesus  'answers'  the 
spiritual  state  of  all  those  about  him,  the  multitude  as  well  as 
the  father,  who  was  here  but  their  spokesmen.  The  vehemence 
of  the  exclamation  reflects  his  cumulative  sense  of  disappointment 
with  the  unpreparedness  of  Israel  for  full  faith  in  God  as  the 
Heavenly  Father,  with  whom  he  had  just  had  such  profound  com- 
munion— in  spite  of  all  that  remained  mysterious  to  his  human 
mind — on  the  Mount  of  Vision.  He  feels  that  his  work  among 
them  lias  had  so  little  spiritual  result.  (The  added  epithet,  'and 
perverse,'  in  Matt,  and  Luke  is  probably  due  to  Deut.  xxxii.  5.) 

21.  he  asked  his  father.  '1  he  interesting  details  given  from 
this  point  on,  to  the  first  half  of  verse  25,  are  f)cculiar  to  Mark. 
They  show  at  how  early  a  stage  in  the  boy's  life  these  seizures 


ST.  MARK  9.  22-25.     XMk  273 

come  unto   him  ?     And   he  said,  From  a  child.     And  22 
oft-times  it  hath  cast  him  both  into  the  fire  and  into  the 
waters,  to  destroy  him  :  but  if  thou  canst  do  anything, 
have  compassion  on  us,  and  help  us.     And  Jesus  said  23 
unto  him,  If  thou  canst !     All  things  are  possible  to  him 
that  believeth.     Straightway  the  father  of  the  child  cried  24 
out,  and  said  %  I  believe ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief.    And  25 
when  Jesus  saw  that  a  multitude  came  running  together, 

"■  Many  ancient  authorities  add  wiih  tears 


began,  how  frequent  thai'  were,  and  how  dreadful — taking  even 
the  form  of  suicidal  frenzy.  They  shew  also  how  the  father's  faith 
had  been  tried,  and  how  nevertheless  it  rose  to  the  word  of 
Jesus. 

22.  if  thou  canst  do  anything'.  The  leper  had  said  '  If  thou 
wilt,  thou  canst'  (i.  40).  But  this  man's  confidence  in  the  Healer 
had  suffered  the  shock  given  it  by  the  powerlessness  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  Healer. 

23.  If  thou  canst  I  a  repetition,  in  which  Jesus  takes  up  the 
father's  word  and  utters  it  again  with  a  touch  of  compassionate 
rebuke,  declaring  how  the  question  of  ability  turns  upon  the 
question  of  faith.  '  If  thou  canst,  thou  sayest  :  but  possibility 
is  limited  only  b}'  one's  faith.'  So  the  question  of  the  possibility 
of  healing  for  the  son  is  turned  from  what  is  in  Jesus  to  what  is 
in  the  Father  himself.  This,  the  line  of  spiritual  awakening,  was 
ever  Jesus'  way,  his  chief  concern  in  healing  the  body  being  with 
the  real  man,  to  whom  it  gave  an  avenue  of  approach. 

24.  Straightway  the  father  of  the  child  cried  out.  The 
father  catches  the  point,  and  the  Master's  word  throws  him  back 
in  the  first  instance  upon  himself  and  his  own  spiritual  action,  as 
the  condition  for  the  efficient  exercise  of  the  power  on  the  side  of 
Jesus.  Instantly  he  rises  to  a  higher  faith  ;  and  this  avails,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Syro- Phoenician  woman,  for  the  faith  which  the 
sufferer  is  not  in  a  position  to  exercise. 

help  thou  mine  unbelief.  The  help  needed,  he  sees,  is  first 
for  himself.  Those  who  are  trying  to  exercise  living  faith  in  God 
best  know  the  unbelief  that  lurks  in  their  hearts. 

25.  when  Jesus  saw  that  a  multitude  came  running 
together.  The  lapse  of  time  in  this  dialogue  was  causing  the 
crowd  to  gather  more  thickly  around.  There  is  no  reason  for 
further  delay,  and  there  is  an  obvious  reason  for  speedy  action. 
Jesus  at  once  speaks  the  word  of  deliverance  for  the  boy.  He 
speaks  it  in  his  own    name,  with  emphasis  on  the    I :    'I,'  the 

T 


2  74  ST.  MARK  9.  26-29.     X^k 

he  rebuked  the  unclean  spirit,  saying  unto  him,  Thou 
dumb  and  deaf  spirit,  I  command  thee,  come  out  of  him, 

26  and  enter  no  more  into  him.  And  having  cried  out,  and 
*  torn  him  much,  he  came  out :  and  the  child  became  as 
one  dead  ;  insomuch  that  the  more  part  said.  He  is  dead. 

27  But  Jesus  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  raised  him  up; 

28  and  he  arose.  And  when  he  was  come  into  the  house, 
his  disciples  asked  him  privately,  ^  saying,  We  could  not 

29  cast  it  out.  And  he  said  unto  them,  This  kind  can  come 
out  by  nothing,  save  by  prayer  °. 

*  Or,  convulsed 

'*  Or,  How  is  it  that  lue  could  not  cast  it  out  ? 

°  i\Iany  ancient  authorities  add  and  fasting. 

Master — no  longer  the  imperfect  learners  in  my  school  of  Divine 
power  through  faith — 'command  thee.' 

26.  torn  liim  much.  The  command  had  been  uttered  in  a 
tone  of  great  authority  and  in  very  definite  terms.  The  case 
required  this,  for  it  was  one  of  extraordinary  severity.  This  was 
seen  in  its  last  stage.  Convulsions  seized  the  boy  again,  convul- 
sions so  violent  and  protracted  that  they  left  him  utterly  exhausted, 
as  if  the  life  had  gone  out  of  him.  Most,  indeed,  took  him  for 
dead. 

27.  took  him  by  the  hand.  So  giving  him  ordinary  human 
help  in  his  collapse,  and  raising  him  out  of  it;  as  he  did  in  the 
two  previous  cases  of  Peters  wife's  mother  i^i.  31)  and  the  daughter 
of  Jairus  (v.  41). 

28.  his  disciples  asked  him  privately.  Lulie  alone  records 
the  impression  produced  on  the  people  :  'they  were  all  astonished 
at  the  majesty  of  God  '  (ix.  43).  Mark  and  Matthew  notice  what 
happened  with  the  disciples  themselves.  When  the  Twelve  are 
in  private  with  him,  the  nine  ask  him,  as  was  natural,  why  they 
had  failed. 

29.  by  nothing',  save  by  prayer*  The  A.  V.  adds  '  and  fast- 
ing.' But  the  shorter  reading  of  the  R.  V.  is  better  supported  and 
doubtless  original.  Yet  the  addition  has  its  own  interest  as 
reflecting  the  experience  of  later  Christian  exorcists  as  to  the  con- 
ditions of  greatest  power  in  such  cases  :  '  fasting '  tended  to  release 
the  spiritual  faculty  of  prayer  for  full  exercise.  Here  we  have  an 
excellent  illustration  of  the  sort  of  guileless  cause  which  explains 
most  changes  in  the  N.  T.  text,  springing  as  they  do  simply  from 
the  practical  spirit  and  interest  with   which  it  was  studied  by  its 


ST.  MARK  9.  30,  31.     XMk  275 

And  they  went  forth  from  thence,  and  passed  through  30 
GaHlee ;  and  he  would  not  that  any  man  should  know  it. 
For  he  taught  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  them,  The  Son  31 

readers.  With  'this  kind,"  this  kind  of  demons,  such  aggravated 
cases  of  possession,  nothing,  says  Jesus,  avails  but  prayer,  as  the 
condition  of  habitual  preparedness  for  the  exercise  of  adequate 
'faitli' — personal  living  reliance  on  God,  the  real  efficient  Worker 
behind  all  that  is.  The  cause  of  the  present  inability  of  the 
disciples,  therefore,  was  in  themselves.  Matthew  reports  Jesus 
to  have  told  them  in  explicit  terms  that  it  was  because  of  their 
'  little  faith  ' :  i.  e.  he  goes  back  to  the  ultimate  secret  of  the  matter, 
of  which  '  prayer'  was  the  condition  and  so  the  immediate  answer 
to  their  query.  They  had  been  trusting  in  their  commission,  and 
had  thought  but  little  of  the  moral  conditions,  those  of  faith  and 
prayer,  on  which  its  efficacy  depended. 

ix.  30-32.  Second  announcement  to  the  Twelve  of  his  coming 
Passion  (cf.  Matt.  xvii.  22,  23  ;  Luke  ix.  43-45). 

30.  from  thence.  That  is,  from  near  Mount  Hermon  and  the 
far  north. 

throng'h  Galilee :  by  the  west  side  of  Jordan.  On  their  way 
to  Csesarea  Philippi  and  the  north  the}'  may  have  gone  by  the  east 
side  of  the  river,  outside  Galilee  proper. 

lie  would  not  that  any  man  should  know  it.  While  Jesus' 
motive  for  travelling  incognito,  in  order  to  escape  the  attention  of 
his  foes  (with  Herod  behind  them),  which  had  made  him  leave 
Galilee  some  weeks  or  even  months  before  (vii.  24),  still  held 
good,  it  is  now  explained  what  was  the  topic  preoccupying  his 
mind  at  this  time.  He  was  engaged  in  trying  to  cotnplete  the 
preparation  of  the  Twelve  for  standing  by  hint,  when  he  should 
make  his  new  and  final  appeal  to  Israel,  assembled  in  Jerusalem 
for  the  festival  of  the  Passover.  As  to  its  probable  issue  he  had 
no  illusions  ;  but  now  he  felt  it  must  be  made  in  the  interests  of  the 
Kingdom,  if  this  was  to  come  speedily,  as  the  message  given  to 
John  and  to  himself  implied.  It  might  come  about  in  one  way  or 
another,  either  by  a  '  repentance'  under  present  conditions  or  only 
with  a  repentance  created  bj'  his  own  rejection,  follow-ed  by  a 
Dixane  vindication  after  a  very  brief  interval — '  after  three  days,'  as 
Hosea  (vi.  2)  had  phrased  it. 

31.  taug'ht  his  disciples:  habitually  during  the  course  of  the 
journey.  This  teaching  and  training  of  the  Twelve  made  his  chief 
work  then  ;  and  his  theme  was  his  being  '  handed  over  into  the 
hands  of  men.'  Luke  adds  that  Jesus  said  to  them  emphatically 
(in  the  Hebraic  language  of  his  source),  '  Do  ye  deposit  deep  in 
{lit.  '•  put  into  ")  your  ears  these  sayings'  (ix.  44). 


2  76  ST.  MARK  9.  32.     XMk 

of  man  is  delivered  up  into  the  hands  of  men,  and  they 
shall  kill  him ;  and  when  he  is  killed,  after  three  days  he 
32  shall  rise  again.     But  they  understood  not  the  saying, 
and  were  afraid  to  ask  him. 


is  delivered  tip  :  rather  '  is  being,'  on  the  way  to  be  (cf.  '  about 
to  be,'  Luke),  'delivered  up.'  He  is  already  treading  that  path  ; 
and  the  word  used,  i.  e.  '  handed  over,'  suggests  that  it  was  by  his 
Father's  hand  that  his  'surrender'  was  being  made  'into  the  hands 
of  men.'  This  draws  out  the  '  Divine  necessity '  implied  in  the 
'must'  &c.  of  viii.  31. 

Luke  has  no  more  than  this  summary  form  of  statement  touching 
Jesus'  coming  Passion,  shewing  thereby  that  his  special  source, 
the  presence  of  which  here  is  indicated  by  the  Hebraic  style  of 
ix.  44a  and  45b  (note  its  parallelism  with  45a),  did  not  contain 
more.  This  independence  in  the  two  lines  of  tradition  confirms 
the  historicity  of  this  topic  as  the  subject  of  Jesus'  teaching  at  this 
juncture.  Does,  then,  lack  of  support  from  the  other  line  throw 
some  suspicion  upon  the  further  references  to  death  and  'rising 
again  after  three  days'  which  occur  in  Mark  (cf.  viii.  31,  there 
followed  by  Luke  also,  and  see  notes)  ?  Hardly.  For  there  seems 
positive  necessity  for  the  latter  idea,  as  the  reassuring  element 
needful  in  a  forecast  which  otherwise  would  have  been  too  un- 
relieved in  its  sombreness  for  Jesus  to  have  spent  days  on  instilling 
it  into  their  minds.  And  this  idea  in  turn  presupposes  death.  It 
was  just  this  aspect  of  final  victory  for  his  cause — which  the  phrase 
'rising  again  after  three  days,'  perhaps  regarded  by  them  as  one 
of  his  suggestive  figurative  expressions,  left  prominent  in  their 
minds — that  would  help  the  disciples  to  go  forward  with  him  in 
the  face  of  imminent  dangers  in  the  actual  situation,  discounting 
the  darker  side  of  his  forecast  of  the  near  future.  Clearly  they 
did  not  face  seriously  the  suggestions  of  his  '  death,'  even  up  to 
the  eleventh  hour  :  cf.  the  next  verse. 

32.  afraid  to  ask  him.  They  had  some  indistinct  and  painful 
sense  of  what  he  meant,  but  no  proper  comprehension  of  it  (this  is 
confirmed  by  Luke's  source  in  ix.  45'',  in  contrast  to  Matthew, 
which  misses  the  real  situation  altogether)  ;  and  they  refrained  from 
asking  him.  They  had  seen  how  Jesus  could  rebuke  even  Peter, 
when  he  spoke  his  mind  about  it  on  the  former  occasion  (viii.  33"!. 

ix.  33-50.  Jesus  at  Capernaum  teaches  His  disriples  htinnlity, 
discipleship,  and  self-tnastery. 

'This  section  illustrates  the  kind  of  teaching  which  Jesus  gave 
in  private  to  his  disciples.  It  may  embody  fragmentary  recol- 
lections of  a  particular  discussion  ;  but  more  probably  Mark  has 


ST.  MARK  9.  33-36.     XMk  277 

And  they  came  to  Capernaum  :  and  when  he  was  in  33 
the   house   he    asked    them,   What  were    ye  reasoning 
in  the  way?     But  they  held  their  peace:  for  they  had  34 
disputed  one  with  another  in  the  way,  who  was   the 
»■  greatest.     And   he  sat  down,  and  called  the  twelve ;  35 
and  he  saith  unto  them.  If  any  man  would  be  first,  he 
shall  be  last  of  all,  and  minister  of  all.     And  he  took  36 
a  little  child,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them  :   and 

*  Gr.  greater 

strung  together  utterances  and  incidents  belonging  to  different 
occasions,  the  connecting  Hnks  being  sometimes  the  mere  repetition 
of  a  single  word,  such  as  "  cause  to  stumble  "  (42  f.),  or  "  fire  " 
(48  f.),  or  even  "in  my  name  "  (37,  39).  The  latter  half  of  37  and 
41  are  paralleled  in  Matt.  x.  40-42,'  and  are  closely  connected 
(H.  G.Wood  in  Peake's  Conmt.  ou  the  Bible,  p.  692). 

ix.  33-37.  Ambition  and  Humility  (cf.  Matt,  xviii.  1-5  ;  Luke 
ix.  46-48). 

(Immediatelj'  before  this  Matthew,  and  it  alone,  introduces  the 
narrative  of  the  half-shekel  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish.) 

The  topic  of  precedence  is  significant  of  Jesus'  language  at  this 
stage  as  more  suggestive  of  definite  Messianic  action  on  his  part 
for  the  bringing  in  of  the  Kingdom.  The  disciples'  question,  how- 
ever, '  reveals  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  which  made  it  difficult  for 
them  to  understand  the  Cross.'  The  principle  of  greatness  through 
service,  here  used  to  correct  their  ambition,  is  again  used  and 
further  developed  in  x.  42  f. 

33.  to  Capernaum.  Here  he  had  begun  his  Galilsean  ministry', 
and  here,  so  far  as  the  Gospels  shew,  he  closed  it.  His  way  now 
was  to  be  towards  Jerusalem. 

in  tlie  house  :  see  ii.  i  and  note. 

34.  held  their  peace  :  realizing  now  the  impropriety  of  their 
conduct,  Mark  (and  Luke)  refers  to  the  discussion  as  if  it  related 
only  to  the  disciples  themselves.  Matthew,  following  his  tradition, 
gives  the  question  a  wider  scope,  and  makes  the  disciples  ask 
'Who  then  is  the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  heaven  (xviii.  1)?' 
The  discussion  possibly  had  its  roots  in  anticipations  connected 
with  the  lead  taken  by  Peter  among  the  Twelve  as  a  body.  Did 
such  distinctions  really  point  to  their  relative  status  in  the  Kingdom 
of  the  Messiah  ? 

35.  sat  down:  as  a  Rabbi  did  when  about  to  teach.  For  what 
follows,  compare  x.  43. 

36.  toofe  a  little  child.     The  verbal  lesson  is  followed  up  by 


2  78  ST.  MARK  9.  37.     X^k 

37  taking  him  in  his  arms,  he  said  unto  them,  Whosoever 
shall  receive  one  of  such  little  children  in  my  name, 
receiveth  me  :  and  whosoever  receiveth  me,  receiveth  not 
me,  but  him  that  sent  me. 


an  object-lesson  which  none  could  mistake.  A  child  is  looking  on 
or  playing  near  by.  (There  is  a  tradition,  but  one  of  no  value, 
that  he  was  the  Ignatius  who  grew  up  to  be  the  famous  bishop 
and  martyr.)  Jesus  calls  the  little  one  (Matt,  xviii.  2),  takes  him 
beside  himself  as  he  sat  in  the  midst  of  the  Twelve,  and  putting 
his  arms  lovingly  round  him  so  repeats  his  lesson.  Mark  alone 
records  this  last  affectionate  gesture.  Matthew  gives  the  words  he 
spoke  at  a  greater  length  (xviii.  3,  &c.),  some  being  the  same  as 
are  found  in  Mark  x.  15— a  verse  which  better  suits  the  present 
context  and  may  well  have  been  spoken  before  verse  37  (as  in 

Matthew). 

37.  receive  one  of  such  little  cliildren.  '  Such  :  a  little 
child  like  this  one,  i.  e.  any  little  child  (in  the  literal  sense)  with 
the  child  spirit,  and  not  only  (as  in  verse  42)  one  '  that  believes  on 
me.'  While,  however,  this  seems  the  strict  or  immediate  meaning, 
the  principle,  here  embodied  in  an  extreme  case  (childhood  being 
then  held  in  little  regard),  necessarily  carries  further;  so  that  it 
amounts  to  this,  '  to  appreciate  in  men  the  Christ-like  character,' 
in  its  unconscious  or  '  natural '  form  as  the  child-spirit,  instead  of 
the  self-seeking  one,  'is  to  appreciate  Christ,  and  more  than  that, 
the  very  nature  of  God.'  This  child  was  the  representative  of  the 
class  of  little  children,  and  a  type  also  of  the  order  of  true  disciples, 
self  forgetful,  modest,  unassuming. 

in  my  name:  ///.  '  on  (the  basis  of)  my  name,'  that  is,  'out  of 
regard  for  me,'  and  my  attitude  to  such.  The  '  name '  stands  for 
the  person  himself.  A  truly  characteristic  and  original  saying 
of  the  Master's  and  one  most  revolutionary  of  ordinary  values, 
especially  in  the  ancient  world. 

receive  one  of  such  .  .  .  me.  True  greatness,  tested  by 
reception  of,  or  spiritual  companionship  with,  Jesus  the  Christ, 
and  with  His  Father,  is  thus  found,  not  in  the  assertion  of  self 
above  others,  but  in  reverence  for  that  humanity  of  which  the  un- 
spoilt child  is  a  type,  and  in  self-denying  service  to  it  in  others. 
Herein  lies  a  mark  of  true  discipleship.  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
Matthew  (probably  Luke's  source  also)  has  nothing  corresponding 
to  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  but  something  like  it  in  x.  40  (as 
Lk.  X.  16). 

ix.  38-41.  Tcachins;  oti  Discipleship  Ccf.  Luke  ix.  49,  59  ;  Matt. 
X.  42).  This  episode  is  felt  by  some  to  have  no  organic  connexion 
with  what  precedes.     The  point  of  contact  is  a  rather  formal  one. 


ST.  MARK  9.  38,  39.     P  279 

[P]  John  said  unto  him,  ^  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  3S 
out  l>  devils  in  thy  name :  and  we  forbade  him,  because 
he  followed  not  us.     But  Jesus  said,  Forbid  him  not :  ?'j 
for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a  ^mighty  work  in  my 

*  Or,  Teacher  ^  Gr.  demons  ■=  Gr.  poiaer 


the  ide.^  of  acting  'in  the  name'  of  Jesus,  and  the  section  is  miss- 
ing in  Matthew.  But  when  we  remember  the  way  tlie  disciples 
were  wont  to  la^'  hold  on  a  phrase,  even  without  catching  its  true 
meaning  (as  with  'the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees'),  we  may  regard 
that  fact  not  quite  conclusive  (yet  see  note  on  verse  41).  Perhaps, 
then,  the  secondary  or  glossing  text  followed  in  A.  V.,  '  John 
answered  and  said  '  (=  Luke  ix.  49),  is  true  to  the  real  connexion. 
38.  John  said.  John  seldom  appears  in  the  Synoptic  narratives, 
and  only  on  this  one  occasion  is  he  spokesman.  He  is  coupled 
with  James  in  the  ambitious  request  for  the  chief  places  in  the 
kingdom  (^x.  351,  end  with  Peter  and  James  and  Andrew  in  the 
question  about  the  time  of  the  end    xiii,  ^). 

•we  saw  one  casting-  out  devils  ('demons  ')  in  thy  name. 
The  Master's  word  just  uttered  about  receiving  persons  '  in  his 
name'  recalls  a  recent  incident  in  the  work  of  the  disciples  (cf. 
Luke  ix.  52*  for  a  special  mission).  Possibly  John,  who  recalls  it, 
and  whose  fervid  zeal  for  his  Master's  honour  seems  implied  in 
Luke  ix.  54,  had  taken  a  leading  part  in  the  matter. 

W3  forbade  Mm:  or  rather  '  tried  to  hinder  him.'  They  had 
seen  one  who  had  not  the  right  coming  from  discipleship  and  a 
commission  like  their  own,  taking  a  liberty,  as  they  judged  it,  with 
the  name  of  Jesus  in  the  work  of  exorcism;  and  they  tried  to  stop 
him.  John  is  now  made  uneasy  about  this.  What  Jesus  had  just 
said  about  the  value  of  action  '  in  his  name  '  might  bear  on  it. 
Were  they  right  in  what  they  lad  done?  Jesus  had  spoken  of 
acting  in  his  name;  but  it  was  about  'receiving',  not  rejecting, 
persons. 

l)9cause  lie  followed  not  us :  rather  '  was  not  following 
us,'  i.  e.  had  not  joined  our  company.  Luke  gives  this  a  rather 
different  form,  'because  he  followeth  not  with  us'  (ix.  49).  They 
had  a  reason  for  their  action,  and  John  states  it.  The  man  was  not 
one  of  themselves,  a  man  duly  authorized  to  represent  the  Master. 
The  narrative  suggests,  especially  in  Christ's  reply,  that  the  man, 
though  he  had  not  even  joined  the  circle  of  professed  disciples, 
acted  in  sincerity  and  believed  in  some  measure  in  Jesus  as  sent 
of  God,  as  well  as  in  the  power  of  his  '  name.' 

39,  Porljid  him  not.  The  answer  of  Jesus  is  that  they  had 
erred  by  excess  of  zeal  Compare  the  case  cf  Joshua,  and  the 
reply  of  Moses  (Num.  xi.  28,  29). 


28o  ST.  MARK  9.  40,  41-     P  XWk 

40  name,  and  be  able  quickly  to  speak  evil  of  me.     For  he 

41  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us.     [X^^]  For  whosoever 


speak  evil  of  me.  Jesus,  too,  gives  his  reason.  There  was 
nothing  to  fear  from  leaving  such  a  case  alone.  A  man  who  had 
faith  enough  in  the  power  of  the  name  of  Jesus  to  think  of  using 
it  in  casting  out  demons,  was  not  likely  to  prove  an  enemy. 
Rather  might  he  be,  or  be  gained  as,  a  friend. 

40.  Per  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us.  On  another 
occasion  Jesus  said  *  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me '  (Matt. 
xii.  30  ;  Luke  xi.  23) — a  striking  example  of  the  fact  that  his 
sayings  need  to  be  taken  in  their  historic  context  in  order  to  be 
apprehended  in  their  spirit,  i.  e.  their  real  sense.  The  cases  are 
in  fact  different,  and  yet  the  two  sayings  rest  on  the  same  principle, 
viz.  that  one  cannot  be  for  and  against,  friend  and  foe,  at  the  same 
time.  A  man  cannot  be  against  Jesus  Christ,  if  he  has  faith,  how- 
ever imperfect,  in  his  name.  He  cannot  be  the  friend  of  Christ  if 
he  holds  aloof,  in  a  critical  attitude,  as  did  the  Pharisees  generally. 
The  one  saying  does  not  negative  the  other,  but  supplements  it. 
The  one  deals  with  a  man's  estimate  of  another's  personal  attitude 
to  Christ  ;  the  other  with  one's  own  attitude  to  him.  In  the 
former  case  the  Law  of  Charity,  doing  to  others  as  we  would  be 
done  by,  means  '  giving  them  the  benefit  of  the  doubt.' 

41.  I"or  whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  dxink, 
&c.  This  verse  continues,  as  it  stands,  the  line  of  thought  inverse 
40,  supporting  it  by  a  solemn  declaration  that  even  a  slight  indirect 
service  to  Christ,  in  the  person  of  one  of  his  followers,  would 
receive  its  reward.  But  in  Matt.  x.  42  the  service  is  to  'one 
of  these  little  ones,'  applied  to  the  Twelve.  Confusion  between 
the  literal  and  spiritual  senses  of  'little  ones' — children  and 
Christ's  disciples  as  humble  in  lot — -would  easily  arise  in  tradition  ; 
and  this  seems  to  have  operated  in  both  cases.  Originally  what 
appears  in  Mark  x.  41  may  have  referred  to  '  one  of  these  little 
ones'  and  followed  directly  on  what  we  find  in  Mark  ix.  37  (or 
perhaps  in  the  context  x.  14  f.),  with  its  '  one  of  such  little 
children.'  For  in  v.  42  also  we  have  'one  of  these  little  ones' 
(as  in  Matt.  x.  42),  with  the  addition  of  'who  believe.'  Confusion 
between  kindred  senses  of  a  saying  on  the  child-spirit  would  be 
apt  to  arise.  In  Matthew's  form  of  the  saying  the  like  tendency 
to  change  the  reference  has  seemingly  been  at  work  ;  only  there 
we  see  the  change  in  process,  as  it  were.  '  And  whosoever  shall 
give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones  (the  context  pointing  to 
Jesus'  discii^Ics)  a  cup  of  ro/r/ water  only,  in  the  name  of  (7  disciple, 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  shall,  &c.'  The  unexplained  way  in  which 
'  one  of  these  little  ones '  occurs  in  Luke  xvii.  2  also  bears  out  the 
suggestion  that  its  original  reference  was  lost  in  tradition. 


ST.  MARK  9.  41.     XMk  281 

shall  give  you  a  cup  of  water  to  drink,  «.  because  ye  are 
Christ's,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose 

*  Gr.  in  name  that  ye  are 


Note  too  that  in  verse  42  Jesus  passes  on  in  Mark's  narrative  (as 
in  Matt,  xviii.  5  ff.  without  the  intervening  digression  caused  by 
John's  question)  to  the  case  of  children  disciples,  in  order  to  dwell 
on  the  terrible  penalty  (in  contrast  to  the  reward  in  verse  41)  for 
putting  stumbling-blocks  in  the  way  of  'little  ones'  in  their  child- 
like innocence.  This  seems  to  preserve  a  trace  of  the  original 
sense  in  which  the  saying  was  uttered  (see  x.  13  f.),  though  the 
context  in  which  it  appears  in  Mark,  immediately  after  reference 
to  Jesus'  ordinary,  adult  disciples,  tends  to  make  the  reference 
ambiguous.  For  '  little  ones  '  had  in  the  Apostolic  Church  come 
to  mean — as  it  may  possibly  have  meant  somewhere  in  Jesus'  own 
teaching  (cf.  Zech.  xiii.  7)  — his  followers  generally,  who,  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  great  or  '  wise  and  understanding'  (cf.  Matt.  xi.  25  ; 
Luke  X.  21),  were  'little'  folk  in  men's  esteem  (cf.  Rev.  xi.  18, 
xiii.  16,  xix.  5,  18,  XX.  12,  for  the  distinction  in  society  between 
'  small '  and  '  great ').  So  in  Matt.  x.  42,  cited  above,  and  also 
Luke  xvii.  2,  where  no  literal  children  have  been  referred  to.  In 
Luke,  where  Christians  as  such  are  in  view,  the  same  verse  w^hich 
follows  Matt,  xviii.  6  (about  'little  children'),  to  the  effect  that 
'  occasions  of  stumbling  must  needs  come,'  precedes  the  saying 
about  causing  offence  to  'these  little  ones' — the  saying  found  in 
Mark  ix.  42  about  child  believers.  This  shews  how  easily  con- 
fusion could  arise  as  to  the  sense  of  the  phrase,  and  so  of  the 
whole  saj'ing.  Further,  as  already  hinted,  the  turn  of  the  phrase, 
'one  of  these  little  ones  who  believe,'  suggests  that  it  was  spoken 
originally  on  an  occasion  when,  not  one  little  child  (as  in  verse  36), 
but  several  were  in  question  ;  and  this  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
situation  in  x.  13  ff.  To  this  therefore  it  more  properly  belongs, 
especially  as  in  that  context  the  idea  of  '  causing  to  stumble,'  or 
rebuffing  the  little  ones,  is  already  present.  Finally,  seeing  that 
what  follows  in  43  ff.  hangs  on  verse  42  by  the  rather  artificial 
link  of  the  idea  '  to  cause  to  stumble '  (see  note  on  43  for  the 
difference  in  its  use  in  the  two  cases),  it  becomes  likely  that  verses 
43-50  originally  belonged  to  j'et  another  and  different  context 
altogether. 

because  ye  are  Christ's  :  literally,  as  it  is  given  in  the  margin 
of  the  R.  v.,  '  in  name  that  ye  arc  Christ's,'  a  too  literal  rendering 
of  the  Aramaic  for  'on  the  score  that  ye  belong  to  Christ.'  As 
'Christ'  (without  the  article  which  makes  it  an  official  title,  'the 
Messiah ')  appears  here  only  in  the  Gospels,  the  form  of  this 
phrase    is    almost    certainly    not    what    Jesus    himself   uttered. 


282  ST.  MARK  9.  42,  43.     X^k 

42  his  reward.  And  Avhosoever  shall  cause  one  of  these 
little  ones  that  believe  ^on  me  to  stumble,  it  were  better 
for  him  if  I'a  great  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck, 

43  and  he  were  cast  into  the  sea.     And  if  thy  hand  cause 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  omit  on  mc  (?  from  Matt,  xviii.  6). 
^  Gr.  a  millsione  turned  by  an  ass. 

Matthew's  'in  the  name  of  a  disciple'  is  more  natural  to  the 
Gospel  setting,  Mark's  phrase  being  really  proper  to  the  Apos- 
tolic age. 

ix.  42-50.  On  offending  '  little  ones,''  and  on  self-mastery  (of. 
Matt,  xviii   6,  8  f  ;   Luke  xvii.  2"^.     See  note  on  verse  41. 

42.  cause  ...  to  stxxmble.  The  present  connexion  is  that, 
while  kindness  to  a  disciple  has  its  reward,  on  the  other  hand  an 
occasion  of  stumbling  given  to  a  child  disciple  brings  heavy 
penalty  to  the  wrongdoer.  Allen  shews  in  a  careful  'Additional 
Note  '  (pp.  199-202  I  that  the  verb  here  rendered  '  cause  to  stumble,' 
as  by  a  stone  put  in  another's  waj',  can  also,  like  the  noun 
skandaloii  (whence,  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  our  'a  scandal'), 
mean  '  ensnare.'  Only  the  context  can  settle  the  better  sense  in 
any  given  case.  The  nature  of  this  penalty,  i.  e.  by  a  millstone, 
points  to  that  in  the  R.  V.  as  here  preferable  ;  cf.  note  on  verse  41. 
The  weak  and  simple,  who  can  so  easily  be  hurt,  ought  to  have 
special  consideration.  On  that  general  principle  Jesus  himself 
acted.  This  principle  of  patient  regard  for  the  weak  has  a  large 
place  also  both  in  the  teaching  and  in  the  practice  of  Paul  (Rom. 
xiv.  21  ;   I  Cor.  viii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  29). 

better  for  him  if  a  great  millstone:  lit.  'an  ass-millstone,' 
one  turned  by  an  asi.  The  ordinary  hand-mill,  as  it  may  be  seen 
ill  the  East  to-day,  consisted  of  two  circular  stones  one  above  the 
other,  worked  by  women,  female  slaves  and  others  (Exod.  xi.  5  ; 
Judges  ix.  53).  Here,  however,  the  reference  is  to  another  kind 
of  millstone,  the  tahanel,  which  was  large  enough  to  require  an 
animal  to  work  it.  The  whole  figure  is  a  strong  one,  expressing 
utter  destruction. 

43-48.  The  sequence  of  these  verses,  which  turn  from  causes 
of  harm  to  others  to  those  to  oneself,  seems,  like  that  of  John's 
digression  above  138-40),  to  be  due  to  an  incidental  phrase  and 
the  idea  it  embodies,  viz.  '  cause  to  stumble.'  Whether,  then, 
they  were  uttered  bj'  Jesus  on  this  occasion  is  very  doubtful  ; 
compare  the  similar  case  in  49. 

43.  if  thy  hand  cause  thee  to  stumble.  The  question  of 
'ofTenccs  '  is  now  shifted,  from  the  case  of  those  caused  to  others, 
to  that  of  those  caused  to  ourselves.  S[)iritual  hurt  may  come  to 
a  man  from  himself,  from  some  part  of  his  nature  which  he  suffers 


ST.  MARK  9.  45-47-     X^k  283 

thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off:  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter 
into  life  maimed,  rather  than  having  thy  two  hands  to  go 
into  ^  hell,  into  the  unquenchable  fire>  And  if  thy  foot  45 
cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off:  it  is  good  for  thee  to 
enter  into  life  halt,  rather  than  having  thy  two  feet  to  be 
cast  into  «^hell.     And  if  thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stumble,  47 

"  Cr.  Gehenna 

^  Verses  44  and  46  (which  are  identical  with  verse  48)  are  omitted 
by  the  best  ancient  authorities. 

to  be  a  source  of  stumbling  or  a  snare  to  himself.  It  is  his  wisdom, 
therefore,  to  cut  off  the  occasion,  at  whatever  cost  and  wherever 
it  lie,  whether  in  hand,  in  foot,  or  in  eye.  In  the  personal  life  too 
there  is  the  need  for  sacrifice. 

into  life  :  in  the  sense,  not  of  mere  existence,  but  '  the  life 
that  is  life  indeed'  (i  Tim.  vi.  19),  the  life  of  the  coming  Kingdom 
(cf.  47). 

into  hell:  rather  'into  Gehenna.'  Tiiis  word  'Gehenna,' 
not  found  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  occurs  eleven  times  in  the 
Synoptics.  It  represents  the  O.  T.  Gc  Hiiinom,  'the  valley  of 
Hinnom,'  '  the  valley  of  the  children  of  Hinnom  '  (Neh.  xi.  30  ; 
Joshua  XV.  8,  xviii.  16  ;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  3  ;  Jer.  vii.  31  ;  2  Kings 
xxiii.  10),  the  name  given  to  a  gorge  mainly  S.W.  of  Jerusalem, 
where  in  ancient  times  idolatrous  Israelites  sacrificed  their  children 
to  Moloch.  It  was  •  desecrated  '  b3- Josiah  (2  Kings  xxiii.  ic^,  and 
became,  it  is  said,  the  place  where  the  refuse  of  Jerusalem  was 
thrown  for  burning  in  fires.  The  horrors  associated  with  the  name 
made  it  a  natural  figure  for  the  place  of  future  punishment :  and 
that  sense  it  bears  in  the  later  Jewish  books,  the  Book  of  Enoch 
(xxvii.  i),  the  Sibylline  Oracles  (i.  103),  4  Esdras  (u.  291,  &c.  Its 
Rabbinic  use  is  seen  in  one  of  'The  Sayings  of  the  Fathers' 
{Pirke  Aboih  i.  6)  :  the  sinner  '  desists  from  works  of  Law  (Tora/i), 
and  in  the  end  he  inherits  Gehinnom.'  Jesus  uses  it  here  and 
elsewhere  in  this  sense,  that  of  the  final  place  or  condition  of 
retribution.  It  passed  into  the  Latin  Bible  ;  but  became  rendered 
in  English  b}'  the  ambiguous  'hell,'  used  also  for  the  Greek  word 
Hades. 

into  the  unquenchable  fire.  Another  figure  of  speech, 
recalling  the  closing  words  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  {Ixv'x.  24),  pro- 
bably in  allusion  to  the  cleansing  fires  that  burned  in  the  ancient 
Ge  Hinnom.  The  existence  of  these  fires,  however,  as  kept  burn- 
ing perpetually  for  the  consumption  of  the  offal  deposited  in  the 
ravine,  is  not  certain.  But  in  any  case  it  is  the  figure  of  a  lasting 
spiritual  penalty  :  so  the  Jewish  paraphrase  (Targum)  of  Isa.  xxxiii. 


284  ST.  MARK  9.  48,  49.     X^k 

cast  it  out :  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  with  one  eye,  rather  than  having  two  eyes  to  be 

48  cast  into  ^  hell ;  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is 

49  not  quenched.     For  every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire  K 

*  Gr.  Gehenna 

^  Many  ancient  authorities  add  and  every  sacrifice  shall  be  salted 
with  salt.     See  Lev.  ii.  13. 

14,  'the  wicked  shall  be  given  over  to  Gehenna,  to  burn  of  ever- 
lasting fire.'  Verses  44,  46,  \vhich  appear  in  the  A.V.,  are  rightly 
omitted  b^'  the  R.  V.  as  being  insufficiently  attested. 

47.  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  phrase  is  used  here  as  an 
equivalent  to  the  'life'  ^vhich  in  the  previous  verses  expresses 
one  of  the  two  final  issues  of  our  doings  with  others  and  with 
ourselves. 

48.  where  their  worm  dieth  not.  Yet  another  strong  figure, 
again  in  terms  of  Isa.  Ixvi.  24,  and  expressing  a  future  penalt}'  that 
does  not  exhaust  itself. 

49.  every  one  shall  be  salted  with  fire.  Once  more  the  con- 
nexion hangs  on  a  phrase,  here  'fire';  but  in  this  case  the 
continuity  of  thought  between  48  and  49  is  deep  and  strong,  far 
rriore  so  than  in  the  next  case,  that  of  the  '  salting'  in  49  and  the 
'salt '  in  50.  The  clause  added  by  the  A. V.,  'and  every  sacrifice 
shall  be  salted  with  salt'  (cf.  Lev.  ii.  i3\  is  no  part  of  the  original, 
but  illustrates  hozu  additions  due  to  similarity  of  idea  tended  to 
creep  into  the  Gospel  tradition,  even  when  it  was  written  down  : 
how  much  more  so  when  it  was  yet  oral?  The  addition  v/as 
originally  an  interpretation  of  the  genuine  text  (which  falls  out  in 
some  early  MSS.)  :  then  it  was  added  to  it.  The  genuine  saying, 
a  very  striking  one,  seems  connected  with  the  preceding  mention 
of  a  fire  that  is  not  quenched,  thus  :  '  Yes,  the  fire.  I  sa}',  is  not 
quenched  ;  for  with  fire— of  one  sort  or  another — all  must,  sooner 
or  later,  be  salted.' 

The  key  to  its  meaning  is  found  probably  in  the  Levitical  regu- 
lation which  provided  that  with  all  oblations  salt  was  to  be  offered 
(Lev.  ii.  13),  as  the  glossing  addition  rightly  suggests.  Salt  was 
used  in  connexion  with  the  making  of  covenants  (Lev.  ii.  13  ; 
Num.  xviii.  ig  ;  2  Chron.  xiii.  5~)  ;  and  the  sacrificial  salt  of  the 
Levitical  offerings  was  the  S3'mbol  of  the  covenant-relation  between 
God  and  Israel.  It  was  interpreted  by  this  lime,  at  least,  with 
reference  to  the  properties  of  salt  as  a  preservative  against  corrup- 
tion in  things  apt  to  putrify,  a  preservative,  however,  with  a 
stinging,  painful  effect  on  sentient  life.  In  this  respect  it  is  like 
'  fire,'  which  also  causes  pain,  j-et,  it  may  be,  wholesome  and 
purifying  pain  ;  hence  the  combination  of  the  two  metaphors  in 


ST.  MARK  9.  50.     XMk  285 

Salt  is  good  :  but  if  the  salt  have  lost  its  saltness,  where-  50 


the  one  idea  '  salted  with  (purifying)  fire.'  To  this  discipline  of 
suffering  in  one  form  or  another,  Jesus  sa3's,  all  men  must  submit, 
whether  freely  or  by  constraint.  The  form  he  here  sets  before  his 
disciples,  for  their  good,  is  that  of  discipline  ;  voluntarily  accepted 
for  the  sake  of  the  true  life,  to  be  safeguarded  thereby  from  corrup- 
tion ;  and  illustrations  of  this  positive  or  cleansing  function  of 
moral  fire  have  just  been  given  in  43-47.  But  these  are  only 
special  cases  of  the  general  principle  of  suffering  as  integral  to  the 
path  of  his  disciples,  as  of  their  Master,  which  Jesus  had  set  him- 
self to  bring  home  to  them  ever  since  he  had  hinted,  while  near 
Caesarea  Philippi,  at  the  Cross  looming  before  him  (see  ix.  31  f.). 

The  best  commentary  on  the  whole  saying  is  another  equally 
striking,  in  Luke  xii.  49  :  '  I  came  to  cast  fire  (of  testing)  upon  the 
earth  ;  and  what  will  I,  if  it  is  already  kindled  ? '  There  he  adds 
that  he  has  himself  to  be  '  baptized  '  with  this  kind  of  searching 
•  baptism'  (cf.  Matt.  iii.  11,  for  the  metaphor,  '  He  shall  baptize  you 
with  holy  spirit  and  fire  ' ),  and  is  sore  pressed  or  '  straitened  '  in 
spirit  *  till  it  be  fulfilled.'  The  context  which  precedes  this  in 
Luke  (xii.  47  f.)  makes  the  parallel  most  illuminative,  teaching  as 
it  does  that  '  stripes  '  for  servants  will  be  '  few  '  or  '  many,'  accord- 
ing as  their  unreadiness  for  their  Lord's  arrival  is  accompanied  by 
knowledge  or  ignorance  of  his  declared  purpohe  to  return  ere  long, 
so  that  they  should  be  ready  for  Him.  The  broad  moral  for  all 
(♦every  one')  is  the  necessity  for  practice  of  the  sacrifice  of  self, 
that  '  life '  may  be  gained  and  loss  escaped. 

50.  Salt  is  good.  Here,  once  more,  the  connexion  in  a  word 
just  used  seems  artificial,  so  that  the  collocation  is  probably  not 
original  but  due  to  accident  in  tradition.  For  the  first  half  of  this 
verse  occurs  in  quite  other  contexts  alike  in  Matt.  v.  13  and  Luke 
xiv.  34  ;  and  in  both  the  '  salt '  meant  is  Christians  themselves,  as 
saving  the  world  from  corruption.  The  same  sense  seems  to 
belong  to  the  saying  here  also  :  yet  such  a  sense  is  alien  to  that 
required  by  sequence  to  verse  49.  The  second  half  of  the  verse, 
on  the  other  hand,  seems  more  of  a  piece  with  the  general  trend 
of  what  precedes,  from  34  onwards.  Probably,  then,  50*  became 
attached  in  oral  tradition  ;its  grammatical  form  for  *  salt  '  differs 
from  that  in  50''). 

lost  its  saltness.  The  sweeping  out  of  salt  that  has  lost  its 
virtue,  and  become  useless  or  hurtful,  is  still,  travellers  tell  us, 
a  common  sight  in  Palestine. 

wherewith  will  ye  season  it  ?  Salt  once  spoilt  can  never 
have  its  saltness  restored.  So  if  the  qualities  which  make  up  the 
'saltness'  of  the  true  disciple — fidelity  at  all  costs  of  pain,  self- 
abnegation,  and  the  like — are  turned  to  faithlessness  and  selfish- 
ness, what  becomes  of  the  discipleship  which  should  save  others 


286  ST.  MARK  9.  50.     XMk 

with  will  ye  season  it  ?  Have  salt  in  yourselves,  and  be 
at  peace  one  with  another. 

from  the  corruption  of  worldliness  and  selfhood  ?  There  is  no 
human  source  of  '  saltness  '  capable  of  renewing  it. 

Have  salt  in  yourselves.  Keep  the  purifying  sacrificial  fire 
alive  in  your  souls,  and  in  particular  let  it  burn  up  the  egoism 
that  destroys  unity. 

and  be  at  peace  one  with  another.  Let  the  saving  salt  of 
fidelity  to  your  Divine  calling  fulfil  itself  in  brotherly'  relations 
with  one  another.  So  the  words  seem  to  bring  us  back  to  the 
disputing  of  the  disciples  (ix.  33)  with  which  the  conversation 
started.  Selfish  claims  for  the  chief  places  destroy  peace  among 
men,  and  are  not  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus'  disciples. 

3.  Third  phase  of  this  Stage  :  Jesus'  back  turned  on 
Galilee,  his  face  towards  Jerusalem  and  its  issues. 

(a)  First  stage  of  the  Journey,     x.  1-31. 

X.  1-12.  Departure  from  Galilee.  Question  of  Divorce  (cf.  Matt, 
xix.  1-9.     Partial  parallels  also  in  Matt.  v.  31,  32  ;  Luke  xvi.  18). 

1.  This  verse  covers  '  the  whole  interval  between  the  end  of  the 
Galilsean  Ministry  and  the  final  visit  to  Jerusalem'  (Swete). 
Jerusalem  was  now  his  goal  ;  and  the  way  took  him  through  '  the 
borders  of  Judaea  and  Trans-Jordania'  (lit.  Beyond  Jordan, 
a  native  phrase  for  the  region,  see  iii.  8,  and  cf.  Gen.  1.  10; 
Num.  xxii.  i,  of  which  Josephus  gives  the  Greek  equivalent,  Peraea 
— not  found  in  the  N.  T.).  Mark,  who  never  refers  to  Samaria, 
seems  here  (as  in  iii.  8)  to  use  '  Judsea  '  in  a  wide  sense  (inclusive 
of  Samaria),  according  to  the  political  or  Roman  usage  of  the  time  ; 
cf.  the  yet  wider  use,  including  Galilee,  in  the  best  text  of  Luke 
iv.  44.  Prof.  Burkitt  (TVje  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission, 
96  f.),  who  does  not  seem  to  have  considered  the  possibility  of 
this  solution  of  the  geographical  difficulty,  objects  to  the  historical 
likelihood  of  the  route  through  Peraea  that  Jesus,  who  was  retiring 
from  Galilee  '  to  avoid  collision  with  tlie  Herodian  officials,'  would 
hardl}'  have  risked  arrest  in  this  other  part  of  Herod's  tetrarchy. 
But  apart  from  the  fact  that  he  was  thus  retiring  gradually  further 
and  further  from  Herod's  capital,  Tiberias — and  in  '  the  marches '  of 
Herod's  realm — Jesus'  attitude  in  Luke  xiii.  31—33,  viz.  that  he 
would  not  have  his  movements  unduly  influenced  by  threats  of  arrest, 
shews  that  we  cannot  press  that  consideration  to  the  extent  Burkitt 
feels  needful.  Indeed,  Peraean  conditions  are  suggested  by  his  own 
view  that  the  question  as  to  Divorce,  put  to  Jesus  here  by  the  same 
class  of  persons  who  were  anxious  to  hurry  Jesus'  movements  in 
Luke  xiii.  31,  viz.  certain  Pharisees,  had  special  topical  reference 
to  Herod's  own  case  and  that  of  Herodias  (who  had  practically 
divorced  her  husband,  cf.  v.  12). 


ST.  MARK   10.  1-5.     XMk  287 

[XMkj  And  he  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into  10 
the  borders  of  Judsea  and  beyond  Jordan  :  and  multi- 
tudes come  together  unto  him  again;   and,  as  he  was 
wont,  he  taught  them  again.     And  there  came  unto  him  2 
Pharisees,  and  asked  him,  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put 
away  his  wife?   tempting  him.     And  he  answered  and  3 
said  unto  them,  What  did  Moses  command  you  ?     And  4 
they  said,  Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of  divorcement, 
and  to  put  her  away.     But  Jesus  said  unto  them,  P'or  5 
your  hardness  of  heart  he  wrote  you  this  commandment. 


and  mnltitndes  come  tog'ether  unto  him  again.  Multitudes 
now  again,  as  of  old,  kept  gathering  as  he  passed  by  ;  and  again, 
as  before  his  retirement  northwards,  he  taught  them. 

2.  put  away  his  wife.  Probably  the  more  specific  form  of  the 
question  as  given  in  Malt.,  whose  account  here  seems  in  the  main 
to  be  based  on  its  own  form  of  the  Apostolic  tradition  (X^'),  is 
more  exact.  Could  a  man  rightfully  divorce  his  wife  for  any  and 
every  cause  ?  That  was  the  issue  involved  in  Herod's  own  case, 
which  probably  occasioned  the  question  and  gave  it  special  point 
and  purpose,  so  that  by  it  his  questioners  were  indeed  '  making 
trial  of  Jesus.  For  a  negative  reply  might  bring  him  into  conflict 
both  with  the  Mosaic  Law  and  at  the  same  time  with  Herod 
Antipas,  who  had  done  this  very  thing  in  an  arbitrary  way.  But 
Mark  shews  no  consciousness  of  any  special  reference,  only  of  the 
marriage  ideal  of  Jesus. 

3.  What  did  Moses  command  you  ?  Jesus  begins,  as  usual, 
by  going  direct  to  the  Scriptural  basis  of  Jewish  Law,  the  final 
authority  which  they  recognized. 

4.  bill  of  divorcement :  see  Deut.  xxiv.  1-4.  The  Deutero- 
nomic  statement  of  the  grounds  on  which  the  husband's  right  of 
divorce  might  proceed  was  differently  interpreted  by  the  Rabbis, 
the  school  of  Shammai  (the  stricter)  and  the  school  of  Hillel  (the 
less  strict)  being  sharply  divided  on  the  subject.  The  former 
'limited  the  right  to  the  case  in  which  the  wife  was  unchaste' 
(Abrahams,  op.  cit.,  p.  711,  a  ground  admitted  in  all  Jewish  circles 
as  making  divorce  a  positive  duty,  and  one  therefore  which  \s  pre- 
sumably taken  for  granted  both  by  Jesus  and  his  questioners. 

5.  Por  your  hardness  of  heart  he  wrote  you  this  command- 
ment. It  is  not  meant  that  the  Mosaic  Law  enjoined  divorce  or 
encouraged  it,  but  only  that  it  permitted  it  and  controlled  it  by 
enjoining  a  legal  form,  by  way  of  safeguard  against  loose  and 
arbitrary  practice  in  the  matter.    The  '  commandment '  here  is  the 


288  ST.  MARK  10.  6-10.     X^k 

6  But  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  Male  and  female 

7  made  he  them.     For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his 

8  father  and  mother,  *  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife ;  and 
the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh  :  so  that  they  are  no 

9  more  twain,  but  one  flesh.     What  therefore  God  hath 
10  joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.     And  in  the 

*  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife. 

regulation  referred  to,  and  its  object  was  to  check  abuse  and  pro- 
tect the  wife.  The  Deuteronomic  Law,  then,  did  no  more  than 
permit  divorce,  and  that  for  an  abnormal  reason — the  moral  condi- 
tion of  the  humanity  it  had  to  deal  with — men's  'hardness  of 
heart.' 

6.  But  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation.  Jesus  goes  back 
behind  the  permissive  ordinance  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  as  relative  to 
sin,  and  invokes  the  ideal  or  intention  of  the  Creator.  An  ancient 
reforming,  semi-prophetic  Jewish  work,  perhaps  of  about  Jesus' 
own  day,  recently  published  as  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  Work 
(ed.  Schechter,  7.  1),  makes  a  like  use  of  this  text.  Divorce  was 
not  contemplated  in  the  original  relation  of  man  and  woman. 

*I.  Por  this  cause,  &c.  The  words  attributed  to  the  first  man 
in  the  O.  T.  record  of  creation  (Gen.  ii.  24)  :  cf.  i  Cor.  vi.  16  ; 
Eph.  V.  31.  The  creation  of  man  as  male  and  female  is  the  ground 
for  the  common  life  of  the  marriage  union  ;  and  that  life  makes 
husband  and  wife  in  such  sense  one  that  every  other  relation,  even 
the  filial,  must  yield  to  it.  Dr.  Kelman  brings  'the  exacting 
spirituality  of  this  doctrine  marriage  '  under  the  head  of  Jesus'  use 
of  '  the  spiritual  idealism  of  the  poet,'  which  runs  through  his 
whole  mode  of  thought  and  speech,  explaining  its  bold,  one-sided 
emphasis,  as  the  occasion  demanded  (see  art.  'Poet'  in  Diet,  of 
Christ  and  the  Gospels,  vol.  ii).  As  to  certain  aspects  of  the 
problem  of  marriage  today,  Allen  justly  remarks  :  '  The  question 
whether  death  dissolves  it,  or  whether  human  sin  (by  adultery  or 
otherwise)  can  dissolve  it,  and  so  thwart  God's  purpose,  is  not 
here  raised.'  That  is,  much  of  the  modern  use  made  of  Christ's 
teaching  on  Divorce  is  not  strictly  relevant  or  warranted.  In 
particular  the  case  of  adultery  or  unchastity,  which  by  general 
consent  was  held  ipso  facto  to  dissolve  the  oneness  of  man  and 
wife,  and  so  make  a  formal  act  of  divorce  a  duty,  does  not  seem 
here  in  question,  even  in  verse  9.  Such  a  deed  perse  '  puts  asunder ' 
the  unity  provided  for  by  Cod's  ordinance,  which  '  joined  together ' 
man  and  wife  as  'one  flesh,'  apart  from  any  human  ordinance  of 
judicial  'putting  asunder.' 

10.  in  the  house  :  better  '  on  entering  the  house ' — which  for 


ST.  MARK  10.  II,  12.     XMk  289 

house  the  disciples  asked  him  again  of  this  matter.    And  n 
he  saith  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
and  marry  another,  committeth  adultery  against  her  :  and  1 2 
if  she  herself  shall  put  away  her  husband,  and  marry 
another,  she  committeth  adultery. 

the  time  was  the  home  of  the  party.  Where  it  was  is  not  stated  : 
probahly  somewhere  in  Peraga.  Matthew  continues  the  statement 
on  divorce  as  if  the  whole  had  been  addressed  to  the  Pharisees. 
Mark  gives  this  detail  more  exactl}'.  But  Matthew  continues 
further  with  additional  matter  (10-12),  in  such  a  way  as  to  shew 
the  feeling  which  prompted  the  disciples  to  return  to  the  question. 
'The  disciples  say  unto  him,  if  the  case  of  the  man  is  so  with  his 
wife  (i.  e.  the  bond  is  indissoluble,  normally),  it  is  not  expedient 
to  marry '  at  all :  which  shews  common  Jewish  feeling  in  the 
matter  (comp,  Abrahams,  op.  cit.,  ch.  ix). 

11.  Whosoever  shall  piit  away.  The  statement  is  here  given 
absolutely,  as  if  divorce  could  in  no  case  be  followed  lawfull}^  by 
another  marriage  union.  But  in  Matt.  xix.  9  (as  in  v.  32,  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount)  one  important  exception  is  specified,  that 
of  the  one  offence  by  which  the  marriage  bond  is  dissolved  ipso 
facto:  when  divorce  proceeds  on  that  ground,  the  marriage  of  the 
man  who  has  to  put  away  his  wife  is  not  unlawful. 

That  is  the  natural  inference  from  the  words  in  Matthew,  and 
nothing  in  Mark,  when  1  cad  in  its  true  historical  setting  (see 
above),  calls  it  in  question.  Yet  many  Roman  Catholic  divines, 
and  not  a  few  Anglicans,  affirm  that  so  long  as  the  divorced  wife 
is  alive,  however  guilty  she  may  have  been,  the  husband  cannot 
marry  again.  This  goes  quite  beyond  the  intention  of  Jesus'  words 
here  (see  Allen),  Mark  does  not  refer  to  this  exception,  since  by 
the  Mosaic  law  it  was  punisl.able  tuiiJi  death  (Deut.  xxii.  22  ;  cf. 
John  viii.  i  ff.),  and  not  merely  by  divorce  (which  shews  that  this 
case  stood  apart),  simply  because  he  is  stating  the  principle  in  its 
broad  or  normal  form,  i.  e.  where  there  is  no  guilt  in  the  partner, 
but  only  the  self-regarding  wish  of  the  party  anxious  for  a  divorce 
(see  V.  2). 

12.  if  she  herself  shall  put  away  her  husband.  The  wife's 
right  to  divorce  the  husband  was  not  recognized  among  tlie  Jews. 
She  could  only  leave  him  in  factor  '  depart'  (so  DandO.  L.,  cf.  i  Cor. 
vii.  10  f.);  and  it  was  not  lawful  for  a  wife,  who  voluntarily-  departed 
from  her  husband,  to  be  married  to  another,  unless  her  husband  re- 
nounced her  (An/iq.  xv.  7.  10).  Among  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
the  wife  had  the  right  of  divorce  ;  but  cases  like  those  of  Salome, 
an  Herodian  princess  tinged  with  Greeco-Roman  \vaj's  (Josephus, 
Antiq.  XV.  7.    10),   were   exceptional.     Hence    it    is    doubted    by 

U 


290 


ST.  MARK  10.  12.     XMk 


some  whether  Jesus  himself  stated  this,  although  it  was  the 
proper  outcome  of  his  general  attitude  to  women  as  man  s  equal 
before  God  It  was  not  within  this  scope  of  the  question  as  raised 
by  the  Pharisees,  and  Jesus  was  not  likely  to  load  his  answer 
needlessly  with  a  further  'hard  saying.'  Burkitt  (as  above 
pp.  100  f.)  suggests  that  Herodias  may  here  be  in  view ;  but 
whether  she,  like  Salome  her  great-aunt,  had  formally  divorced  her 
husband  Philip,  is  doubtful.  ...  ,    ■ 

On  the  whole,  then,  there  is  much  to  be  said  for  this  verse  being 
an  addition  which  arose  naturally  in  tradition,  as  the  correlative  in 
terms  of  Gentile  thought  (and  for  the  instruction  ot  Gentiles)  ot 
Jesus'  own  words  applying  the  general  principle  to  the  husband 
only  (according  to  the  original  Jewish  context). 

Tesus'  teaching  on  divorce,  while  it  does  not  bear  on  all  the 
problems  of  the  Christian  Law  of  Divorce  relative  to  the  ideas  of 
the  modern  world  (medical  and  other),  does  bear  directly  upon 
the  weighty  religious  problem  of  his  attitude  to  the  Mosaic  Law 
as  Divinely  inspired.     Montefiore  {The  Synoptic  Gospds,  1.  238) 
observes  :  '  Nowhere  does  Jesus  go  nearer  to  denying  the  absolute 
divinity,  permanence,  and  perfection  of  the  Law  ;  J^*  ^"^  ^fJl^^J^ 
that  he  was  not  himself  conscious  of  doing  so.'     As  HG.  Wood 
puts  it  (op  at.  p.  693),  in  relation  to  Deut.  xxiv.  if.:     This  law 
Sesus   set^s   asid^e,    briaying   down    a    far-reaching    pnncple    of 
interpretation  which  suggests  that  "  the  Mosaic  Law  was  in  certain 
cases  a  kind  of  second  best,"  or  by  citing  from  Gen.  0- ^j)  ^  P^^^ 
sage  emphasizing  the  Divine  purpose  of  marriage.      Wellhausen 
would  interpret  Mark  x.  6  thus  :   "  But  in  Genesis  Moses  wrote, 
Male  and    female  created    he    them   .  .   .  Jesus    does    not   over- 
throw Moses  with  the  higher  authority  of  God,  but  Deuteronomy 
with  Genesis."     He  corrects  Moses  by  Moses.'     But  this  hardly 
covers  the  whole  case.    Had  Jesus  so  meant,  it  was  to  his  interest 
so  to  put  it  explicitly.     Rather  we  have  here  a  case  parallel  with 
certain  sayings  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  like  '  Ye  have  heard 
that  it  was  said,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery:  but  I  say  un  o 
you,  that  every  one  that  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her  hath 
committed   adultery  with  her  already  in  his   heart.       i'^ere  too 
Tesus  goes  behind  the  Mosaic  Law,  as  imperfect  or  limited  in 
scope,   to  a  spiritual  principle  more  fundamental  and  searching. 
So  with  the  teaching  on  Divorce,  save  that  on  the  present  occa- 
sion he  has  to  hand  another  passage  in  Scnplure  which  sets  forth 
the  same  matter  in  its  more  ideal  form,  and  so  has  not  to  io.mu- 
latc  his  prophetic  higher  criticism  of  the  substance  ot  the  Mosaic 
Law  in  his  own  words,  and  thereby  explicitly  on  his  own  authority. 
In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  Matt.  v.  31  f.,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  same  teaching  is  given  with   '  but   I  say  unto  you.       (borne 
tiiink  Matt.  v.  31  f.  to  be  based  on  the  above  incident.) 


ST.  MARK  10.  13,  14.     XMk  291 

And  they  brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he  13 
should  touch  them  :    and  the  disciples  rebuked  them. 
But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  moved  with  indignation,  14 


X.  13-16.  Incident  of  the  blessing  of  children  (cf.  Matt.  xix.  13-15  ; 
Luke  xviii.  15-17;.  Mark's  narrative  suggests  (cf.  17)  that  this 
occurred  while  Jesus  and  his  disciples  were  '  in  the  house  '  where 
the  above  conversation  had  taken  place.  Possibly  Jesus'  extra- 
ordinarily affectionate  treatment  of  the  little  child  in  ix.  37  had 
somehow  reached  the  ears  of  the  mothers  in  question,  and  they 
were  eager  to  have  the  prophet,  whose  attitude  to  Childhood  was 
so  different  from  the  superior  one  usual  among  '  holy '  men  and 
religious  leaders,  bless  their  treasures  :  see  note  on  v.  16. 

13.  little  cMldren.  The  word  used  by  Mark  is  that  used  also 
in  X.  36.  and  was  applicable  even  to  children  of  twelve  years  of 
age  (Mark  v.  39,  42).  The  children,  therefore,  were  not  so  much 
babes  in  arms  as  little  ones  somewhat  grown,  yet  young  enough 
to  be  brought  or  'come'  to  Jesus  in  their  mothers'  care.  They 
were  able  to  respond  to  spiritual  influence  as  persons,  '  to  receive 
the  Kingdom  of  God.'  Luke  uses  a  word  more  definitely  applicable 
to  babes  and  very  young  children  (xviii.  15,  cf.  ii.  12,  16  ;  2  Tim. 
iii.  15)  :  and  this  has  given  rise  to  the  more  usual  conception  of 
infants  in  their  mothers'  arms. 

toucli  them.  Matthew  puts  it  '  that  he  should  lay  his  hands 
on  them  and  pray  '  (xix.  13).  So  in  effect  Mark  means  by  his  use  of 
'  touch,'  to  judge  from  v.  16,  with  its  la^-ing  on  of  hands  in  bene- 
diction ;  cf.  the  case  of  Israel  blessing  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  (Gen. 
xlviii.  14). 

rebuked  them :  in  mistaken  concern  for  the  Master's  dignity 
or  ease. 

14.  moved  witli  indignation.  Wrath,  together  with  grief,  is 
ascribed  to  Jesus  in  Mark  iii.  5.  This  is  the  only  occasion  on 
which  the  expressive  word  selected  here  for  indignation — as  when 
one  feels  'This  is  too  nutch  to  be  let  pass  calmly  ' — is  used  of  him. 
It  is  the  word  that  describes  the  resentment  of  the  chief  priests 
and  scribes  when  the  children  in  the  temple  cried  Hosanna  to  the 
son  of  David  (Matt.  xxi.  15").  It  was  a  disappointment  that  kindled 
strong  feeling,  to  see  his  spirit  so  misunderstood  and  his  gracious 
work  hindered,  and  that  by  the  very  men  he  had  been  instructing 
so  patiently.  Matthew^and  Luke,  significantly,  both  omit  reference 
to  the  emotion  displayed,  as  though  it  were  hardly  proper  to 
attribute  such  to  the  Divine  man.  How  different  their  feeling  to- 
wards emotion  in  such  a  person  was  from  ours  to-day,  may  be 
seen  from  the  statement  of  Dr.  Kelman  that  'the  temj^erament  of 
Jesus  was  in  the  highest  way  emotional— a  trait  which  he  connects 


292  ST.  MARK  10.  15-17.     X^k 

and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  Uttle  children  to  come 
unto  me ;  forbid  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 

15  of  God.     Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  in 

16  no  wise  enter  therein.     And  he  took  them  in  his  arms, 
and  blessed  them,  laying  his  hands  upon  them. 

i;      And  as  he  was  going  forth  ^into  the  way,  there  ran 

"^  Or,  ('.';  his  ivay 


with  his  poetic  mode  of  thought  and  speech  {Dkt.  of  Christ  and 
the  Gospels,  2si.'^o<^V).  _,       ,  .  .u       u-u       - 

Suffer  .  .  .  forbid  them  not.  The  charter  of  the  children  s 
riehts  Words  of  welcome  encouragment  to  the  parents,  even  if 
addressed  to  the  mistaken  disciples  in  tones  that  at  once  arrested 
them.  '  We  hear  the  Lord's  indignant  call,  as  it  starlles  the  disci- 
ples in  the  act  of  dismissing  the  party '  (Swete\ 

of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  quahties  of  an  open 
soul  '—simplicity,  trustfulness,  docility,  affeclion- proper  to  child- 
hood, are  the  very  ones  that  make  the  moral  conditions  for  en- 
trance into  the  Kingdom.  They  that  have  them  must  not  be 
forbidden  :  rather  they  belong,  thus  far,  in  temper  to  the  Kingdom 

(cf.  also  ix.  41,  and  note).  ,  .u       ,  . 

15.  Most  characteristic  words,  significant  for  Jesus  thought 
alike  regarding  children  and  the  child  spirit  and  regarding  the 
nature  of 'the  Kingdom  of  God.'  •       i        .. 

16  he  took  thsm  in  his  arms.  Another  emotiona.  act, 
noticed  only  by  Mark  (cf.  ix.  36\  Luke  omits  the  whole  verse. 
Matthew  records  the  laying  on  of  Jesus'  hands,  but  not  the  loving 
embrace  Mark's  word  for  '  he  blessed  them  '  '  is  intensive  and 
far  removed  from  any  official  benediction  '  i^Wood).  Hardly  any- 
thing is  more  characteristic  of  Jesus  than  his  attitude  to  children. 
It  is  unparalleled  in  ancient  literature,  though  Paul's  tone  in  Col.  ni. 
21    '  that  they  be  not  discouraged,'  has  caught  something  of  it. 

X.  17-22.  The  incidevxt  of  the  Rich  Man  ivhose  wealth  proved  an 
obstacle  (cf.'  Matt.  xix.  16-22  ;  Luke  xviii.  18-23) 

IV.  into  the  way:  or,  as  in  margin,  *  on  his  way.  1  his 
striking  incident  took  place  just  as  Jesus  was  resuming  his  journey. 
ran  one  to  him.  From  Matthew  (xix.  20  we  learn  that  he 
was  young,  the  term  'young  man'  being  one,  however,  that 
might  cover  any  age  from  earliest  manhood  to  middle  life  ;  and 
from  Luke  that  he  was  a  'ruler,'  a  person  of  position,  perhaps 
one  of  the  rulers  of  the  local  synagogue  (xvui.  18).     All  three 


ST.  MARK  10.  i8.     XMk  293 

one  to  him,  and  kneeled  to  him,  and  asked  him,  Good 
«  Master,  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  ? 
And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Why  callest  thou  me  good?  li 

*  Or,  Teacher 


Gospels  notice  his  wealth.     Mark  alone  mentions  that  he  '  ran  '  to 
Jesus,  so  eager  was  he. 

kneeled  to  him :  another  fact,  shewing  his  earnestness  and 
his  estimate  of  this  new  teacher,  noticed  only  by  Mark. 

Good  Master  :  that  is  '  Teacher.'  The  young  man  recognized 
Jesus  as  a  great  Rabbi  ;  and  he  saluted  him  reverently  as  such,  as 
pupils  were  accustomed  to  do  homage  to  distinguished  teachers. 
He  had  no  higher  idea  of  what  Jesus  was.  The  question  and  the 
answer  are  given  in  substantially  the  same  form  in  Mark  and 
Luke.  They  appear  somewhat  differently  in  Matthew.  There  the 
question  is  'What  good  thing  shall  I  do,  that  I  may  have  eternal 
life  ?  and  the  answer  is,  '  Why  asketh  thou  me  concerning  that 
which  is  good?  One  there  is  who  is  good'  (xix.  17).  The 
tradition  with  which  Matthew  was  familiar,  as  also  the  Nazarene 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  avoids  the  difficulty  touching 
Jesus'  own  person  seemingly  involved  in  the  more  original  form 
(as  shewn  even  by  Matt.  xix.  17'^)  of  Mark  and  Luke,  by  connect- 
ing the  epithet  '  good  '  with  '  thing  '  instead  of  Master  (see  below), 

inlierit  eternal  life.  This  great  phrase,  '  eternal  life, '  occurs 
first  in  Daniel  (xii.  2),  and  there  as  a  contrast  to  'eternal'  or 
age-long  '  contempt.'  It  was  familiar  to  the  Jews,  especially  to 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  It  had  become  a  subject  of  discussion  ; 
and  in  connexion  with  it  many  questions,  some  of  them  serious 
and  others  more  theoretical,  had  arisen. 

18.  Wliy  callest  thou  me  good  ?  The  3'oung  man's  sincerity 
we  have  no  reason  to  doubt.  But  his  ideas  were  superficial.  It 
is  to  correct  these,  not  really  to  disclaim  his  own  moral  '  goodness,' 
that  Jesus  replies  in  these  terms.  The  inquirer  had  opened  with 
a  conventional  use  of  the  adjective  '  good,'  as  a  mere  term  of 
courtesy  ;  and  Jesus  suggests  by  his  challenge  on  this  score  that 
his  whole  mode  of  thinking,  even  of  '  eternal  life  ' — a  conception 
involving  profound  ideas,  if  rightly  taken — may  also  be  conven- 
tional, and  in  need  of  deepening  in  order  to  correspond  to  spiritual 
reality  (see  note  on  21).  He  had  no  proper  conception  of  'eternal 
life  '  as  Jesus  conceived  it — just  as  his  use  of  the  term  '  good  '  was 
superficial.  Jesus  throws  the  inquirer  back  upon  himself,  by 
challenging  the  fitness  of  the  t'tle  'good,'  as  ilius  easily  applied  to 
him  bj'  a  stranger,  pointing  the  speaker  to  goodness  as  seen  in 
God,  and  bringing  him  to  the  test  of  the  Divine  law. 


294  ST.  MARK  10.  19,  20.     X^k 

19  none  is  good  save  one,  even  God.  Thou  knowest  the 
commandments,  Do  not  kill.  Do  not  commit  adultery, 
Do  not  steal.  Do  not  bear  false  witness,  Do  not  defraud, 

20  Honour  thy  father  and  mother.  And  he  said  unto  him, 
a  Master,  all  these  things  have  I  observed  from  my  youth. 

''  Or,  Teacher 


19.  Thou  knowest  the  coinmandments.  As  he  is  referred, 
with  a  view  to  a  worthier  conception  of  goodness,  to  God  (m 
whom  alone  it  exists  in  perfection^  as  its  real  standard  ;  so  he  is 
referred  further  to  the  commandments,  in  which,  particularly  lor 
a  Tew  the  mind  of  God  was  seen.  The  order  in  which  the  com- 
mandments are  cited,  according  to  Mark  and  Matthew,  is  the 
sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  ninth,  (tenth),  fifth  ;  according  to  Luke,  the 
seventh,  sixth,  eighth,  ninth,  fifth.  The  former  is  that  o  our 
Hebrew  text  and  of  the  Alexandrine  MS.  in  Ex.  xx  and  Deut.  v. ; 
while  the  latter  is  that  of  the  Vatican  MS.  of  the  LXX  The 
position  of  the  fifth  commandment  at  the  end  is  remarkable,^  and 
may  well  have  been  added  in  tradition,   like  what  follows  it    in 

Matt.  xix.  \(^.  ,     ,.  .  ,        .     .         , 

Tesus  recites  only  the  commandments  dealmg  with  relations  to 
one's  fellow  men.  Fulfilment  of  the  open  and  unmistakable  duties 
to  which  these  have  regard  is  the  test  of  the  sincerity  and  reality 
of  observance  of  duties  towards  God.  The  latter  lie  more  within 
our  own  hearts,  and  are  more  liable  to  mistake  by  ourselves  as  well 
as  by  others.  In  naming  those  precepts  of  the  second  table,  Jesus 
takes  the  suitable  way  of  approach  to  a  mind  which,  while  open 
and  honest  in  its  way,  had  not  risen  beyond  the  external  aspect  ot 

'"do  not  defraud:  lit.  'do  not  deprive.'  There  is  special 
point  in  the  precept  expressed  as  '  do  not  defraud.'  that  is  '  do  not 
take  from  others  what  is  theirs.'  For  this  was  the  besetting  stn  of 
rich  men,  personally  or  through  their  agents  (see  James  v.  4% 
It  may  be  t  .ken  as  a  form  of  the  tenth  commandment  Some 
rather  think  it  a  free  quotation  from  Deut.  xxiv.  14  (Cod.  A\ 
comparing  Ecclesiasticus  iv.  i,  '  My  son,  deprive  not  the  poor 
man  of  his  living,'  in  both  of  which  the  same  verb  is  used  Ihis 
latter  reference  would  fit  in  well  with  Jesus'  concern  for  the  poor 

in  verse  21.  ^.i.      tu 

20.  all  these  things  have  I  observed  from  my  youth,      ine 

mention  of  the  commandments  would  come  as  a  welcome  surprise 

to  the  young  man.      He  liad  thought  probably  that  something  more 

was    needed    than   that    observance   of  the    Law   which    he    had 

studied,    and  which   he  could  say   lie  had   fulfilled,   m  his   own 

conventional  way. 


ST.  MARK   10.  21.     XMk  295 

And  Jesus  looking  upon  him  loved  him,  and  said  unto  21 
him,  One  thing  thou  lackest :  go,  sell  whatsoever  thou 
hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure 

21.  lookmg'  upon  hiui  loved  him.  The  look  of  Jesus  evidently 
had  impressed  Peter  greatly  on  this  as  on  other  occasions  (cf.  iii. 
5.  34)  V.  32,  xi.  II,  and  see  Luke  xxii.  61).  These  particulars  are 
recorded  only  by  Mark,  but  they  go  to  the  heart  of  the  matter. 
Jesus,  turning  his  searching  look  on  the  young  man,  saw  in  his 
frank  and  earnest  face  witness  to  the  fact  that  he  was  an  honest, 
though  unenlightened  inquirer  after  '  life  '  ;  and  he  regarded  him 
with  affectionate,  yearning  interest,  as  he  brought  him  to  the 
further  test. 

One  thing  thou  lackest.  The  young  man  had  not  got  beyond 
the  ordinary  Jewish  ideas  of  a  conventional  or  legally  correct 
observance  of  the  Law.  The  requirement  now  made  brought  him 
face  to  face  with  a  question  of  real  self-denial,  and  so  with  the 
inwardness  of  the  Law  (which  dealt  Paul's  Pharisaism  so  deadly 
a  stroke,  Rom.  vii.  7-10^ — the  deeper  meaning  of  *  goodness  '  and 
'  eternal  life,'  and  what  it  cost  to  achieve  the  former  and  win  the 
latter. 

The  words  '  One  thing  thou  lackest '  are  not  meant  quantitatively 
but  qualitatively,  the  specific  duty  put  to  this  rich  man  being 
chosen  as  a  test  and  index  of  his  whole  attitude  to  God  and  man, 
to  probe  his  soul  to  its  roots. 

go,  sell  whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor.  '  These 
words  are  spoken  from  the  level  of  the  questioner's  idea  that  by 
doing  something  external  he  could  earn  eternal  life  [i.e.  a  place  in 
the  Messianic  Kingdom].  Entire  renunciation  of  earthly  posses- 
sions would  be  such  an  act  [and  at  the  same  time  serve  another 
purpose,  viz.  bring  him  face  to  face  with  his  own  heart  and  its  real 
love,  which  was  not  supremely  to  God  and  man]  ;  and  following 
Christ  would  lead  him  into  a  region  of  ideas  in  which  he  would 
find  that  goodness  consisted  less  in  doing  than  in  being'  (Allen). 
That  is,  the  specific  command  was  'a  test  of  obedience  and  faith, 
which  the  Lord  saw  to  be  necessary  in  this  particular  case ' 
(Swete).  It  was  not  to  be  generalized  and  elevated  into  '  a 
counsel  of  perfection,'  by  which  the  full  or  ascetic  tj'pe  of  devoted 
piety  was  to  be  marked  off  from  the  ordinary,  as  first-class  from 
second-best,  as  later  and  monastic  tj'pes  of  piety  have  taught. 
Yet  it  has  again  and  again  proved  itself  t/ie  test  which  one  and 
another  of  the  most  truly  Christian  souls — a  Peter  Waldo  of  Lj'ons, 
a  Francis  of  Assisi,  and  many  another  less  known  to  men  — have 
needed,  in  order  to  free  them  from  the  bonds  and  entangle- 
ments of  material  wealth  and  comfort,  and  to  .give  them  the  true 
soul-liberty  of  love,  as  of  one  wedded  to   Lady  Poverty  as  to  a 


296  ST.  MARK  10.  22,  23.     XMk 

2  3  in  heaven:  and  come,  follow  me.  But  his  countenance 
fell  at  the  saying,  and  he  went  away  sorrowful :  for  he 
was  one  that  had  great  possessions. 

23       And  Jesus  looked  round  about,  and  saith  unto  his 

spiritual  bride  (St.  Francis's  simile).  It  is  a  test  which,  in  spirit  at 
least,  is  pre-eminently  relevant  to  our  own  state  of  society  and 
Christian  duty.  It  must  always  be  assumed  by  those  possessed 
of  wealth  to  apply  to  themselves  in  some  serious  and  searching 
sense,  seeing  to  it  how  to  fulfil  its  spirit  or  inner  reality,  alii<e  as 
regards  themselves  and  others,  more  truly  and  fruitfujl}',  by  their 
Master's  own  standards,  if  in  some  other  form  of  obedience  than  the 
original  and  literal  one.  And  the  test  of  i/iat  form  of  devotion  will 
be  that  it  will  tax  their  vigilant  self-denial,  and  keep  them  in  daily 
training  {askesis)  of  soul,  no  less  than  the  single  act  of  renuncia- 
tion relative  to  which  this  Jew  made  '  the  Great  Refusal.' 

For  the  Biblical  and  Christian  doctrine  of  wealth  of  every  kind 
and  degree,  as  held  in  trust  for  God  and  His  uses,  sec  ProfeHy ,  its 
duties  and  rights  (Macmillan,  new  ed.  1915),  Essay  iv. 

tlioti  Shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven.  Contrast  'treasures 
on  earth  '  (Matt.  vi.  19).  For  the  idea,  compare  Luke  xii.  33  f. 
It  goes  back  to  Prov.  xix.  17,  '  He  that  hath  pity  upon  the  poor 
lendeth  unto  the  Lord.' 

22.  his  countenance  fell.  The  word  rendered  '  fell '  is  one 
that  means  'clouded  over.'  It  is  used  of  a  lowering  sky  (Matt. 
xvi.  3).  It  expresses  thedarkeningor  saddening  of  the  face  under 
the  influence  of  gloomy  thoughts,  and  in  particular  under  the  sense 
of  grief  or  disappointment. 

went  away  sorrowful.  He  had  thought  of  securing  eternal 
life  by  doing.  He  discovered  that  there  was  an  obedience  that  was 
far  beyond  him,  a  fulfilment  of  the  Law  tliat  meant  an  inward 
devotion  of  the  spirit  for  which  he  was  not  ready.  His  too  easy 
notions  of  righteousness  and  goodness,  of  eternal  life  and  the 
keeping  of  the  commandments,  as  regards  personal  sacrifice  of 
one's  real  treasure  (Matt.  v.  20,  vi.  21,  cf.  Luke  xii.  33f.),  were 
dissipated,  his  hopes  shattered,  and  he  turned  away  not  so  much 
angry  as  grieved  and  disappointed.  He  was  unable,  then,  to  pay 
the  price  of  true  discipleship  ;  and  of  his  future  course  nothing  is 
told — a  silence  which  adds  a  suggestive  urgency  to  the  moral  of 
the  episode  as  recorded. 

X.  23-27.  Riches  and  the  Kingdom  0/  God  (c(.  Matt.  xix.  23-26  ; 
Luke  xviii.  24-27). 

23.  looked  round  about:  noted  only  by  Mark.  The  gaze 
which  had  been  turned  luvinjrly  and  searchingly  on  the  young 
man  is  now  cast  round  about  the  circle  of  the  Twelve.     Ci.  iii.  5. 


ST.  MARK  10.  24-26.     XMk  297 

disciples,  How  hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  enter 
into   the    kingdom   of   God !     And   the   disciples  were  24 
amazed  at  his  words.     But  Jesus  answereth  again,  and 
saith  unto  them,  Children,  how  hard  is  it  ^  for  them  that 
trust  in  riches  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  !     It  is  25 
easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  a  needle's  eye,  than  for 
a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.     And  2O 
they  were   astonished   exceedingly,   saying  I*  unto   him, 

"  Some  ancient  authorities  om'it/or  them  that  trust  in  riches 
**  Many  ancient  authorities  read  among  themselves 

riches.  The  word  used  here  is  one  of  wider  scope  than  that 
used  in  verse  22.  Like  our  'means,'  it  includes  all  kinds  of 
possessions,  in  money,  goods,  or  anything  else. 

24.  amazed.  This,  too,  is  given  only  by  Mark.  It  is  a  strong 
term,  expressing  the  consternation  into  which  these  words  of 
Jesus  threw  even  his  elect  followers.  The  rich  !  Were  not  they 
the  privileged?  How  different  this  Kingdom  must  be  from  what 
they  anticipated— a  Kingdom  open  to  men  who  were  like  little 
children,  and  not  to  the  great  and  wealthy  !  This  shews  clearly 
how  little  changed  as  yet  was  the  traditional  idea  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  in  their  minds. 

Jesiis  answereth  ag°aiu.  In  reply  to  their  amazement  he 
repeats  his  staggering  declaration  in  another  form.  In  doing  so  he 
qualifies  its  hardness  both  by  the  terms  of  his  address  and  by  a 
distinction  now  made  explicit.  '  Children,'  he  says — using  an 
affectionate  designation,  suggestive  at  once  of  his  sympathy  and  of 
their  childish  backwardness  in  moral  insight — 'by  have  riches 
I  mean  have  trust  in  riches.'  So  far  the  saying  is  softened  and 
simplified.  Yet  in  the  nextbreath  its  essential  meaning  is  re-stated 
in  a  most  absolute  form. 

25.  for  a  camel  to  go  througrh  a  needle's  eye.  A  strong 
hj'perbolical  expression,  which  is  to  be  taken  in  the  obvious  sense 
of  its  terms.  Some  have  thought  to  reduce  its  seeming  exaggera- 
tion by  taking  the  needle's  eye  to  be  the  name  of  a  small  side-gate 
near  or  in  a  great  gate,  e.g.  at  Jerusalem.  This  is  wholly  to  miss 
the  point  of  the  statement.  The  Jewish  Rabbis  were  accustomed 
to  use  such  extreme,  paradoxical  comparisons  ;  and  it  is  in  fact 
found  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud.  It  is  meant  to  express  in  the 
strongest  possible  form  the  incompatibility  of  a  soul  being  possessed 
by  love  of  riches  and  by  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  so  the  special 
difficult^'  which  the  rich  have  beyond  others,  in  entering  it. 

26.  astonished  exceedingly.     Their  amazement  is  intensified. 


298  ST.  MARK  10.  27-29.     XMk 

27  Then  who  can  be  saved  ?     Jesus  looking  upon  them 
saith,  With  men  it  is  impossible,  but  not  with  God  :  for 

28  all  things  are  possible  with  God.     Peter  began  to  say 
unto  him,  Lo,  we  have  left  all,  and  have  followed  thee. 

29  Jesus  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  There  is  no  man  that 
hath   left  house,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  mother,  or 

For  their  Jewish  ideas  connected  prosperity  with  righteousness, 
and  made  it  natural  to  think  of  those  manifestly  favoured  by  God 
in  outward  things  as  meant  by  Him  to  have  His  Kingdom.  Plainly 
the  lesson  of  '  the  little  child,'  as  type  of  the  spirit  of  God's 
Kingdom,  had  not  yet  taken  root  in  their  minds. 

27.  all  things  are  possible  with  God.  Probably  Jesus'  look 
I'cf.  21)  as  he  uttered  these  words  had  in  it  sometliing  which 
helped  to  reassure  his  hearers  that  things  would  be  better,  by 
God's  grace,  than  seemed  to  them  possible  from  such  a  hard  say- 
ing. Impossibility  to  their  minds,  limited  as  they  were  as  men. 
did  not  exhaust  the  possibilities  of  the  case  as  seen  by  God  (cf. 
Gen.  xviii.  14  V  He  can  make  the  '  impossible  '  actual,  and  accom- 
plish by  grace  what  rank  or  privilege  or  human  f;fl"ort  of  itself 
cannot  effect. 

X.  28-31.  The  Reward  of  Discipleship  (cf.  Matt.  xix.  27-30  ;  Luke 
xviii.  28-30). 

28.  Peter  beg^an  to  say  unto  him.  Here  Peter  breaks  in,  and 
utters,  as  was  his  wont,  what  was  in  their  mind. 

we  have  left  all.  There  is  emphasis  on  the  'we' — 'we, 
your  Apostles.'  Peter's  interruption  was  in  terms  of  the  case 
of  the  rich  young  man.  '  We  at  least  have  done,'  he  meant  to  say, 
'  what  this  rich  man  has  not  done.  That  will  surely  help.' 
Matthew  adds  a  blunt  claim  for  reward,  'What  then  shall  we 
have  ? ' 

29.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  The  reply  of  Jesus  is  directed  not 
to  Peter,  in  particular,  but  to  all  who  do  likewise.  Matthew  liere 
gives  more  than  Mark  or  Luke.  These  record  only  what  applies 
to  all  followers  of  the  Lord.  Matthew  prefixes  something  meant 
specially  for  the  Twelve — the  promise  of  a  share  in  the  prerogative 
of  judgement  in  '  the  regeneration,'  when  the  '  Son  of  Man  shall 
sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory.'  Luke  has  this  in  a  later  and  more 
intimate  context,  that  of  the  Last  Supper  (xxii.  29  f.),  which  suits 
rather  better. 

left  house,  or  brethren.  The  instances  of  renunciation 
mentioned  are  suggested  by  the  case  immediately  before  him. 
These  Apostles,  for  whom  Peter  spoke,  had  indeed  left  home, 
relations   and   possessions    (some   leaving   their   boats  and  nets, 


ST.  MARK  10.  30.     XMk  299 

father,  or  children,  or  lands,  for  my.  sake,  and  for  the 
gospel's  sake,  but  he  shall  receive  a  hundredfold  now  in  30 
this  time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  and  mothers, 
and  children,  and  lands,  with  persecutions ;  and  in  the 


others,  e.g.  Levi,  occupations  of  a  different  kind).  Tiie  words 
'  or  father  '  are  doubtful.  They  do  not  recur  in  v.  30  and  are 
lacking  in  the  Old  Lat.  and  in  Luke,  which  omits  'lands'  and 
inserts  '  wife.'  For  the  time  (though  not  for  ever,  as  we  see 
from  I  Cor.  ix.  5)  Peter  had  had  to  make  this  last  saciifice  also. 

for  my  sake,  and  for  tlie  gospel's  sake.  See  note  on  viii.  35. 
Here  we  note  that  Matthew,  '  for  my  name's  sake,'  and  Luke,  'for 
the  sake  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,'  give  support  (as  is  often  the 
case)  to  one  or  other  part  of  Mark's  fuller  expression. 

30.  lie  shall  receive  a  hundredfold:  i.e.  in  the  fellowship  of 
the  brotherhood  of  the  Kingdom,  as  a  single  spiritual  family. 
Matthew  and  Luke  1 '  manifold  more')  do  not  repeat  the  details 
which  follow  in  Mark,  in  keepingwith  Semitic  style.  In  its  terms 
this  promise  resembles  the  poetically  figurative  descriptions  of  the 
blessings  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  which  were  familiar  to  the 
Jews  and  are  found  in  their  non-canonical  literature.  It  is  as  if 
the  reward  was  to  be  given  in  the  same  kind — houses  for  houses, 
relations  for  relations,  possessions  for  possessions — but  in  more 
liberal  measure.  It  is  expressed,  however,  in  terms  so  large  as 
at  once  to  suggest  something  beyond  that,  a  return  in  kind  yet 
different— inward  good  for  outward,  spiritual  relationships  for 
natural  connexions,  and  a  fellowship  in  possessions  shared — 
rewards,  in  short,  in  the  form  of  the  blessings  belonging  to  the  new 
Messianic  kingdom.  This  explains  the  inclusion  of  '  houses,' 
which  is  omitted  by  some  early  MSS.,  probably  on  the  ground  of 
a  too  literal  understanding,  at  a  time  when  '  Evangelical  poverty  ' 
had  become  an  integral  part  of  full  Christian  piety,  as  essentially 
ascetic. 

now  in  this  time:  i.e.  the  present  age,  ere  the  Messianic 
age  of  the  Kingdom  has  yet  come  in  power. 

■with  persecutions.  This  qualifying  clause,  which  neither 
Matthew  ncr  Luke  adopts  from  Mark,  was  possibly  not  uttered  by 
Jesus,  but  is  rather  the  Church's  aside,  reminding  Christians  of 
the  present  cost  they  have  to  reckon  witli  (cf.  Acts  xiv.  22).  Such 
a  caveat  would  readily  arise  in  the  use  of  this  saying  for  practical 
instruction.  It  seems  hardly  like  Jesus'  way  to  qualify  his  poetic 
description  in  this  manner.  His  caution,  which  is  on  other  lines, 
comes  in  the  next  verse. 

and  in  the  world  to  come:  i.e.  'in  the  age '  that  follows 
Christ's  Second  Advent,  the  new  condition  of  things  which   is  to 


300  ST.  MARK  10.  31.     X^k 

31  "world  to  come  eternal  life.     But  many  that  are  first 
shall  be  last;   and  the  last  first. 

*  Or,  age 

be  inaugurated  by  that  decisive  event,  and  in  which  the  Kingdom 
is  to  have  its  consummation.  In  that  age  there  is  a  further  reward 
for  the  follower  of  Jesus,  *  eternal  life ' — a  phrase  conveying  the 
Israelite's  hope  from  the  time  of  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  onwards, 
and  into  which  Jesus  infused  a  higher  and  more  spiritual  meaning. 

31.  first  shall  toe  last.  This  closing  declaration  is  omitted  by 
Luke  on  the  present  occasion  (as  not  in  his  X).  He  gives  it  in  his 
account  of  Jesus'  reply  to  the  question  'Are  there  few  that  be 
saved  (xiii.  30)?'  So  Matthew  gives  it  at  the  end  also  of  the 
Parable  of  the  Labourers  in  the  Vineyard  (xx.  16),  which  he  intro- 
duces (from  his  special  tradition)  immediately  after  the  present 
incident,  probably  by  way  of  illustrating  the  meaning  of  this 
saying.  That  parable  conveys  the  lesson  that  the  rewards  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  and  of  Christian  discipleship,  are  not 
given  on  the  ground  of  priority  in  opportunitj',  or  calculable 
service,  or  man's  idea  of  merit,  but  on  the  ground  of  inward  con- 
ditions, and  the  wise  and  just  counsel  of  God,  '  to  whom  ail  hearts 
are  open.' 

Assuming  that  the  saying  was  actually  uttered  here,  though  it  is 
the  sort  of  maxim  which  might  easily  become  attached  to  various 
contexts  (cf.  Matt.  xx.  16,  Luke  xiii.  3o\  it  may  mean  one  of  two 
things,  (i)  Going  with  what  immediately  precedes,  it  warns  that 
priority  \n  time  among  those  who  make  such  lenuncialion  as  the 
disciples  had,  for  the  sake  of  the  coming  Kingdom,  is  no  guarantee 
of  relative  position  in  the  final  issue:  so  that  humble  fidelity  in 
following  up  the  initial  sacrifice  is  needful.  (2)  Looking  further 
back  to  the  starting-point,  i.  e.  the  notion  of  a  priority  of  advantage 
as  belonging  to  the  rich  and  prominent  in  Israel,  it  would  be 
a  final  denial  of  its  truth.  The  former  is  preferable,  especially  as 
the  maxim  seems  here  to  be  a  set-off"  to,  or  qualification  of,  what 
has  just  been  said  :  '  But  manj'  first  (to  come  forward)  shall  be 
last,  and  the  last  (to  come)  first.'  Compare  the  Parable  of  the 
Pounds,  and  the  varying  use  made  of  such  opportunity. 

(b)  On  the  way  to  Jerusalem  :  sotjic  typical  incidents  :  x.  33-45 
X-  32-34.  Third  nnnoiinccmciit  0/  the  Passion  and  Resurrection 
(cf  Matt.  XX.  17-19;  Luke  xviii.  31-34).  This  paragraph  may 
'  be  regarded  as  introducing  the  last  section  of  the  gospel,  the 
story  of  the  passion  '  (Wood).  The  goal  of  the  journey  is  spiri- 
tually within  Jesus'  sight  as  never  before,  and  some  sense  of 
foreboding  communicates  itself  even  to  those  about  him.  Mark's 
narrative  is  peculiarly  vi\'id  and  impressive  hero.     It  deals  with 


ST.  MARK  10  32.     XMk  301 

And  they  were  in  the  way,  going  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  32 
and  Jesus  was  going  before  them  :  and  they  were  amazed  ; 
*  and  they  that  followed  were  afraid.    And  he  took  again 

*  Or,  hut  some  as  they  followed  were  afraid 

this  occasion  as  one  of  critical  moment,  and  enables  us  to  realize, 
as  the  other  Gospels  do  not  in  like  measure,  the  bearing  of  the 
]\Iaster  and  the  feelings  of  the  disciples. 

32.  they  -were  in  the  way.  It  was  when  he  '  was  going  forth 
into  the  wa}' '  that  Jesus  was  arrested  by  the  rich  young  ruler's 
question.  With  the  Twelve  he  is  now  'in  the  way',  his  journey 
being  resumed  and  his  course  directed  to  Jerusalem.  The  'way' 
no  doubt  was  the  highway  followed  by  the  usual  bands  of  pilgrims 
at  the  stated  seasons  of  ascent  to  the  Holy  City. 

going'  up  :  as  to  the  spiritual  capital  of  Judaism. 

going-  before  them.  Only  Mark  notices  this,  and  he  evi- 
dently attaches  exceptional  significance  to  it.  Jesus  withdrew  as 
it  were  within  himself  for  a  time  from  the  immediate  companion- 
ship of  the  Twelve,  and  contrary  to  his  habit  moved  on  ahead, 
alone,  with  set  face  :  see  Luke  ix.  51,  '  he  stedfastly  set  his  face  to 
go  to  Jerusalem.'  Kelman  {loc.  at.)  cites  this  as  a  case  in  which 
Jesus'  'spiritual  exaltation'  (cf.  Luke  x.  21  for  another  case) 
'shewed  itself  in  his  mien  to  the  eye  of  onlookers. 

they  were  amazed :  better  '  were  lost  in  awed  wonder.' 
Something  in  the  way  in  which  Jesus  went  before  them — the  rapt 
abstraction  of  his  gaze  or  the  resolved  bearing  he  assumed — awed 
the  Twelve  with  the  sense  of  the  fatefulness  of  this  movement 
towards  Jerusalem.  But  there  is  not  enough,  either  in  the  form  of 
the  original  (where  'they'  is  not  expressed,  and  therefore  cannot 
afford  any  contrast  to  'but  they  that  followed')  or  in  what  we 
know  otherwise  of  the  Twelve  at  this  stage,  to  warrant  the  usual 
view  of  the  passage,  one  contrasting  the  attitude  of  the  inner  and 
outer  circles  of  Jesus'  following  on  this  occasion.  Hence  we 
seem  bound  to  accept  the  conjecture  of  Dr.  C.  H.  Turner  that  we 
have  here  a  primitive  corruption  of  Mark's  true  text,  which  per- 
haps read  'and  was  lost  in  awed  wonder'  (cf.  xiv.  33^  ;  so  that 
this  feeling,  reflected  in  Jesus'  bearing,  caused  those  following  to 
be  afraid.  The  non-use  of  this  sentence  by  Matthew  and  Luke  is 
perhaps  significant  of  the  difficulty  which  it  presented  to  early 
readers  of  Mark. 

they  that  followed  were  afraid:  not  a  body  of  'disciples" 
m  a  wider  and  looser  sense  than  the  Twelve  (just  alluded  to  as 
themselves  'awed'),  going  up  to  the  Passover  in  Jesus'  company 
or  caravan  (as  most  suppose) ;  but  Jesus'  followers  generally. 
They  all  fe!t  vague  fear  at  his  manner  as  he  walked  ahead,  mani- 
festly filled  with  agitating  thought  and  emotion. 


302  ST.  MARK  10.  33,  34.     X^k 

the  twelve,  and  began  to  tell  them  the  things  that  were 

33  to  happen  unto  him,  saying,  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem ;  and  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered  unto  the 
chief  priests  and  the  scribes ;  and  they  shall  condemn 
him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him  unto  the  Gentiles  : 

34  and  they  shall  mock  him,  and  shall  spit  upon  him,  and 
shall  scourge  him,  and  shall  kill  him ;  and  after  three 
days  he  shall  rise  again. 


took  again  the  twelve.  Matthew  states  explicitly  that  Jesus 
took  them  'apart.'  After  a  while,  that  is,  he  joins  them  again, 
and  takes  them  by  themselves  in  order  to  explain  his  action  and 
tell  them  what  was  in  his  mind. 

33.  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  delivered.  This  is  the  third 
announcement  of  His  passion  that  he  makes  to  the  unwilling  ears 
of  the  Twelve  :  and  it  is  the  most  distinct  and  circumstantial  of  all. 
It  mentions  not  onl3'  his  being  'handed  over'  (cf.  ix.  31, ;  to  the 
Jewish  authorities  and  their  formal  condemnation  of  him  to  death 
(not  so  Luke  xviii.  32),  but  also  the  subsequent  delivery  to  the 
Gentiles  (the  Roman  authorities),  and  even  the  circumstances 
attending  his  sentence  and  punishment — the  mockery,  the  spitting, 
the  scourging— as  well  as  the  death  and  resurrection  already  alluded 
to  in  viii.  31,  ix.  31.  These  more  specific  features  of  the  actual 
story  of  the  Passion  most  probably  arose  unconsciously  in  the 
transmission  of  the  historical  fact  that  Jesus  again,  and  yet  more 
emphatically,  foreshadowed  his  future  lot  of  rejection  as  God's 
Messiah.  Naturally  there  are  some  differences  between  the  three 
Synoptics  in  such  details  (e.  g.  Matthew  alone  specifies  crucifixion 
as  the  mode  of  death).  But  possibly  Luke  xviii.  31  (  =  his  special 
source)  gives  us  most  faithfully  the  real  line  which  Jesus'  words 
took,  namely,  allusion  to  the  language  of  prophecy,  saying  that 
'all  the  things  that  stand  written  through  the  prophets  shall  be 
accomplished  unto  the  Son  of  man.'  He  also  emphasizes  the 
strange  fact  (as  on  the  second  occasion,  ix.  45)  that  the  disciples 
were  still  unable  to  grasp  what  Jesus  meant.  'And  they  under- 
stood none  of  these  things  ;  and  this  saj'ing  was  hid  from  them, 
and  they  perceived  not  the  things  which  were  said  '  (xviii.  34). 
This  statement  would  indeed  be  incredible  had  the  terms  in  which 
Jesus  pointed  to  his  coming  rejection  been  as  explicit  as  those  in 
which  it  came  to  be  couched  in  tradition,  as  above.  But  there  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  no  need  to  conceive  the  matter  thus.  Some- 
thing more  general  and  indefinite  in  phrasing  best  satisfies  the 
situation. 


ST.  MARK  10.  35-37-     XMk  303 

And  there  come  near  unto  him  James  and  John,  the  35 
sons  of  Zebedee,  saying  unto  him,  "•  Master,  we  would 
that  thou  shouldest  do  for  us  whatsoever  we  shall  ask 
of  thee.     And  he  said  unto  them,  What  would  ye  that  I  36 
should  do  for  you?     And  they  said  unto  him,  Grant  37 
unto  us  that  we  may  sit,  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  one 

"  Or,  Teacher 

X.  35-45.  The  Ambitious  Request  of  the  Sons  of  Zebedee  (cf. 
Matt.  XX.  20-28).  'J'his  incident  is  omitted  bj'  Luke  (after  his 
source  ?),  who  gives  in  a  later  chapter  the  story  of  a  contention 
among  the  disciples  as  to  who  should  be  greatest  (xxii.  25-28). 
There  is  this  difference  also  between  the  narratives  of  Matthew 
and  Mark  here,  that  in  the  former  the  chief  petitioner  is  the  mother 
(whom  we  know  to  be  Salome,  by  comparing  Mark  xv.  40  with 
Matt,  xxvii.  56),  while  in  the  latter  the  sons  themselves  make  the 
request.  The  mother's  solicitude  for  the  honour  of  her  sons  is 
very  natural.  The  application  probably  was  her  thought,  but  the 
sons  joined  in  it  and  expressed  their  own  sense  of  what  thej'  con- 
sidered themselves  entitled  to  look  for. 

35.  the  sons  of  Zehedee:  cf.  i.  19  f.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  unlike  Salome  Zebedee  had  taken  little  interest  in  the  claims 
and  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  Where  all  is  matter  of  conjecture,  it  is 
more  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  like  his  sons,  he  had  been  a 
disciple  of  the  Baptist  and  had  recognized  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
In  any  case  Salome  maj',  whether  with  her  husband's  consent  or 
after  his  death,  have  been  one  of  the  circle  of  ministering  women 
referred  to  in  Luke  viii.  1-3. 

we  would  tliat  tlioii  shouldest  do  for  us  whatsoever  we 
shall  ask  of  thee.  A  request  which  betrays  how  little  the 
Twelve,  and  even  the  select  three,  yet  understood  what  was  the 
true  nature  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  as  Jesus  conceived  it. 

37.  Grant  unto  us  that  we  may  sit,  one  on  thy  right  hand, 
and  one  on  thy  left  hand,  in  thy  g-lory.  They  think  only  of  the 
grandeur  and  coming  glorj'  associated  with  his  kingdom  ;  and  will 
iiave  the  places  of  highest  honour  in  it,  nearest  to  tlie  king's 
person.  Quite  probably  the  idea  of  a  period  of  difficulty,  danger, 
and  even  rejection  by  the  national  leaders,  as  immediatel}'  before 
their  Master — according  to  his  reading  of  Scripture  prophecy 
touching  Messiah — had  made  some  impression  on  them  by  this 
time.  But  they  took  the  language  he  used  of  it  as  for  the  most 
part  figurative,  and  in  any  case  as  descriptive  onlj'  of  a  brief  ordeal 
after  which  God's  intervention  in  power  would  set  all  right,  and 
usher  in  the  stage  of  Jesus'  vindication  and  '  glory '  :  cf.  38  f. 


304  ST.  MARK  10.  38,  39-     X^k 

38  on  thy  left  hand,  in  thy  glory.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask.  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup 
that  I  drink?  or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I 

39  am  baptized  with  ?  And  they  said  unto  him,  We  are 
able.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  The  cup  that  I  drink 
ye  shall  drink ;  and  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 

33.  Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  I  drink  ?  Jesus  brings 
their  minds  back  to  the  question  of  their  capacity  for  fellowship 
with  him  in  suffering.  The  term  'cup'  is  a  frequent  figure  both 
in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the  N.  T.,  in  different  applications.  It  occurs, 
as  a  figure  of  speech,  both  for  the  happy  lot  or  experience  of  the 
godlj' — the  idea  being  that  this  comes  from  God  i,cf.  xiv.  36)  as  the 
wine-cup  at  a  table  comes  from  the  host  (e.g.  Ps.  xvi.  5,  xxiii.  5) 
— and  for  the  unhappy  lot  of  the  wicked  (e.g.  Ps.  xi.  6). 

or  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  .  .  .  Another  figure  for 
suffering,  overwhelming  suffering  in  which  one  is  immersed  or 
submerged  (so  a  second  century  B.C.  papyrus  in  Moulton  and 
Milligan,  Vocabulary  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  102).  Jesus  uses  it  again  of 
his  sufferings  when  he  speaks  of  being  come  to  'cast  fire  upon  the 
earth  '  (Luke  xii.  49^  It  is  akin  to  one  of  the  most  frequent 
figures  of  the  O.  T.,  especially  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  which 
speaks  of  one  who  is  in  dire  peril  or  aflliction  as  being  in  deep 
waters  (Ps.  xviii.  16,  xlii.  7,  Ixix.  i,  cxxiv.  4,  cxxx.  i). 

39.  We  are  able.  This  answer  suggests  that  they  had  some 
idea  tliat  a  phase  of  suffering  had  to  be  gone  through  before  '  the 
glory  '  of  Messiah  finally  dawned  ;  and  they  claimed  to  be  ready 
for  so  much.  There  is  tragic  irony  in  their  ignorance  alike  o(  how 
much  was  before  them,  and  how  insufficient  was  their  strength  to 
meet  it. 

The  cup  that  I  drink  ye  shall  drink.  Here  the  stress  lies 
on  shall,  the  sense  being  that  thc\%  like  their  fellow- disciples, 
shall  indeed  share  the  suffering  lot  of  their  Master,  a  lot  more 
generally  indicated  in  viii.  34  fl".  as  the  case  of  all  his  followers. 
Some,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  have  needlessly  read 
into  the  words  a  more  specific  meaning  than  this,  namely  that 
James  and  John  should  both  die  a  martj'r's  death,  like  Jesus  him- 
self. The  fact  that  this  was  certainly  the  case  with  James  (Acts 
xii,  2)  helped  to  give  rise  to  this  notion.  Further,  Papias  (early 
in  the  second  century)  was  cited  by  Philip  of  Side  in  the  fifth 
century  (on  the  testimony  ()f  much  later  writers')  for  the  statement 
that  both  the  sons  of  Zebedee  '  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Jews  '  (not 
'/he  Jews,'  as  is  often  incxactl3' stated).  This,  even  if  correct, 
would  be  satisfied  in  John's  case  by  some  persecution  short  of 
death,  e.  g.  one  which  may  have  led  to  his  exile  in  Patmos  (Rev. 


ST.  MARK    10.  40-44-      XMk  305 

w'thal  shall  ye  be  baptized  :  but  to  sit  on  my  right  hand  40 
or  on  wvleft  hand  is  not  mine  to  give  :  but  //  is  for  them 
for  whom  it  hath  been  prepared.     And  when  the  ten  41 
heard  it,  they  began  to  be  moved  with  indignation  con- 
cerning James  and  John.     And  Jesus  called  them   to  42 
him,  and  saith  unto  them,  Ye  know  that  they  which  are 
accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over  them ; 
and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority  over  them.     But  43 
it  is  not  so  among  you  :  but  whosoever  would  become 
great  among  you,  shall  be  your  *  minister :  and  whoso-  4^ 
ever  would  be  first  among  you,  shall  be  ^  servant  of  all. 

*  Or,  servant  ^  Gr.  botid-servant 

i.  9\     See  also  Armitage  Robinson,    The  Historical  Character  of 
St.  John's  Gospel,  pp.  64  ff. 

40.  is  not  mine  to  give.  Here  lay  a  difference  between 
drinking  of  the  cup  and  sitting  on  Jesus'  right  or  left  hand. 
Fellowship  with  Jesus  in  the  former  would  come  of  itself  in  their 
conflict  with  an  evil  world.  But  close  proximity  to  him  in  glory 
depended  on  further  conditions,  and  would  not  be  given  by  Jesus' 
own  award. 

for  whom,  it  hath  been  prepared :  i.  e.  by  God.  In  Matthew 
it  is  expressly  put  so — '  for  whom  it  hath  been  prepared  of  my 
Father '  (xx.  23^  This  preparation  and  the  choice  or  determina- 
tion which  it  implies  are  no  arbitrary  decisions,  but  the  wise  and 
gracious  dispositions  of  the  Father. 

42-45.  As  regards  these  verses  H.  G.  Wood  justly  writes  :  '  In 
the  following  discussion  with  the  disciples,  we  have  one  of  the 
great  transmutations  of  values,'  as  regards  '  greatness  'and  '  service,' 
'wherein  Jesus  dethroned  Alexander  the  Great  and  Napoleon.' 

42.  called  them  to  him.  He  had  now  to  deal  with  the  whole 
company  of  the  Apostles,  and  not  merely  with  two  individuals  ; 
and  he  does  it  by  calling  attention  to  the  broad  principles  involved, 
making  no  reference  to  the  fault  of  James  and  John. 

43.  it  is  not  so  among'  you.  If  they  were  to  be  in  his  kingdom 
at  all,  their  ideas  must  be  different  from  those  that  prevailed  in 
heathen  society  and  characterized  heathen  ways  of  thought. 
Among  the  Gentiles  autocratic  power  was  the  accepted  type  of 
rule.  But  his  kingdom  was  a  society  of  a  radically  different 
order,  a  society  to  which  ambition  and  self-assertion  were  entirely 
alien,  and  in  which  only  one  pre-eminence  w^as  known,  that  o£ 
loving  service. 

X 


3o6  ST.  MARK  10.  45-     X^k 

45  For  verily  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many. 

45.  Por  verily  (rather  '  even,'  as  A.  V.)  the  Son  of  man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto  (served),  but  to  minister  (serve). 
That  greatness  in  his  kingdom  was  so  unHke  what  it  was  in  the 
Gentile  world,  is  made  clearer  and  more  moving  by  an  appeal  to 
his  own  example,  as  the  highest  possible  enforcement.  'The  Son 
of  man '  himself,  who  was  man  and  yet  more  than  other  men,  had 
come  to  serve,  not  to  be  served. 

and  to  give  bis  life.  Not  only  to  serve,  but  to  do  so  to  the 
last  degree  of  self-sacrifice. 

a  ransom.  The  word  expresses  deliverance  by  paying  a 
price,  or  the  price  paid  for  deliverance.  It  is  used  in  the  O.  T., 
e.  g.,  for  the  price  paid  for  the  redemption  of  a  slave  (Lev.  xix.  20) 
or  a  captive  (Isa.  xliv.  13),  and  the  ransom  paid  for  a  life  (Exod. 
xxi.  30,  xxx.  12  ;  Num.  xxxv.  31).  In  the  N.  T.  this  is  the  only 
instance  of  it  in  this  particular  form.  But  we  find  it  in  a  compound 
form  in  i  Tim.  ii.  6,  a  'ransom  for  ail,'  where  also  it  is  applied  to 
Christ  himself  as  the  sacrifice. 

for  many:  probably  in  allusion  to  Isa.  liii.  iif. :  'By  his 
knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  (or  "make  righteous'') 
many  :  and  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities.  .  •  .  He  bare  the  sin  of 
many,  and  made  (maketh,  marg.)  intercession  for  the  transgressors.' 
'  For  '  (aiiii)  here  has  the  sense  of  '  instead  of.'  The  preposition 
conveys  the  idea  of  exchange  or  substitution.  It  means  '  in  ex- 
change for,'  'in  place  of,'  and  occurs  in  such  phrases  as  '  an  eye 
for  an  eye,'  'a  tooth  for  a  tooth '  (Matt.  v.  38)  ;  '  for  a  fish  ...  a 
serpent'  (Luke  xi.  11)  ;  '  Esau,  who  for  one  mess  of  meat  sold  his 
own  birthright'  (Hcb.  xii.  16).  But  the  most  exact  parallel  is  in 
viii.  37,  'What  should  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  life 
{antallagtna)  ? ' 

Jesus  is  here  represented  as  viewing  his  life  as  '  given  '  or  laid 
down,  not  only  in  connexion  with  {pcii)  or  'on  behalf  of  (hypcr) 
the  deliverance  or  redemption  of  many,  but  also  '  in  the  place  of,' 
as  representative  of,  them.  That  is,  it  is  here  spoken  of  as  a 
ransom  by  way  of  substitutiim  (in  some  sense)  for  the  lives  of 
many,  like  that  of  the  servant  of  the  Lord  in  Isa.  liii,  whose  life 
becomes  by  Divine  action  '  an  ofiering  for  sin.'  According  to  the 
ideas  of  the  O.  T.,  followed  also  in  other  parts  of  the  N.  T.,  this 
ransom  may  be  conceived  of  as  an  atoning  sacrifice.  If  so,  it 
would  be  this  in  very  much  the  sense  of  Isa.  liii,  as  it  is  in  the 
Epistle  of  Peter,  who  may  be  Mark's  authority  here  :  see  i  Peter 
i.  18  ff.,  ii.  24,  iii.  18.  This  declaration,  however,  is  here  made 
incidentally,  not  for  doctrinal  purposes  but  with  a  practical  object 


ST.  MARK  10.  45.     XMk  307 

— the  checking  of  selfish  feehng  in  the  disciples,  and  the  illustra- 
tion of  what  gives  influence  or  power  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Yet  it  is  one  of  the  chief  sayings  which  give  us  an  insight  into 
Jesus'  own  view  of  his  life  and  death. 

He  is  here,  and  for  the  first  time,  represented  as  placing  a 
redemptive  meaning  on  his  voluntary  giving  of  himself  or  his 
'hfe  '  (used  according  to  '  the  Hebrew  habit  of  taking  experience 
as  a  whole,'  without  formal  distinction  between  its  ethical  and 
physical  aspects,  both  being  regarded  as  an  expression  of  the  one 
Living  God  ;  cf.  Proceedings  of  OxfordSoc.o/Hist.  Theology,  1904-5, 
p.  43).  The  giving  is,  too,  on  the  lines  of  substitution,  within  the 
unity  or  '  solidarity '  of  humanity,  if  within  that  of  Israel  in  the 
first  instance. 

Such  language,  largely  because  of  its  prominence  in  the  dis- 
tinctive part  of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  has  been  suspected  by  many 
of  being  wrongly  attributed  to  Jesus.  But  the  mode  of  thought  is 
thoroughly  Jewish,  and  not  merely  Pauline,  as  appears  not  only 
from  Isaiah  liii  but  also  from  the  way  in  which  the  death  of  certain 
Maccabean  martyrs  for  fidelity  to  God  is  represented  as  having 
substitutionary  and  atoning  value  for  Israel :  see  2  Mace.  37  f. 
(known  to  Philo  and  seemingly  implied  in  Heb.  xi.  31)  and  4  Mace. 
i.  II,  vi.  29,  xvii.  22.  This  last  is  specially  noteworthy.  For 
though  it  is  a  '  product  of  Alexandrian  Judaism  during  the  century 
before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem'  (Swete,  Inirod.  to  the  O.  T.  in  Greek, 
p.  281),  its  author  was  'a  legalist  with  Pharisaic  tendencies  '  ;  and 
therefore  his  doctrine  of '  the  atonement  for  sin  which  is  made  by 
voluntary  sacrifice'  is  not  to  be  taken  as  peculiar  to  Judaism  out- 
side Palestine,  even  though  its  phrasing  may  be  characteristic  of 
this  rather  than  of  the  Jewish  homeland.  These  martyrs  for  God's 
cause  'became,  as  it  were,  life  j'ielded  in  compensation  for 
{antipsychori)  the  sin  of  the  nation  ;  and  through  the  blood  of  those 
godly  ones  and  their  atoning  death  the  Divine  providence  rescued 
Israel  from  its  previous  state  of  adversity  '  (4  Mace.  xvii.  22). 
Here  we  have  substitutionary  atonement,  but  not  by  penal 
suff'ering. 

What  we  have  to  do  with,  then,  is  not  the  exact  shade  of  mean- 
ing given  by  any  writer  to  the  idea  of  pure  '  life  '  yielded  in  death, 
as  availing  'in  place  of  others  for  their  '  ransom'  from  the  guilt 
and  eifects  of  sin,  but  the  broad  idea  itself.  For  this  is  all  that 
meets  us  in  the  words  of  Jesus  recorded  in  Mark.  That  they  go 
beyond  the  prophetic  meaning,  notably  of  Isaiah  liii,  which  is  the 
chief  background  also  of  Peter's  thought  (alike  in  Acts  and  in 
I  Peter),  cannot  be  shown  from  the  text  of  the  saying,  especially 
as  read  in  its  context.  This  is  satisfied  by  a  meaning  far  more 
directly  and  simply  religious  than  the  Pauline  theory  (with  its 
penal  or  legal  aspect"),  which  depends  on  a  special  theological 
system,  differing  not  a  little  from  that  of  any  other  N.  T.  writer  as 


3o8  ST.  MARK  10.  46.     X^k 

g      An^thev_come  to  Jericho :  and  as  he  went  out  from 

of  S.n  has  upon  n.en    of  nu  .7)  •  >    -  not^^p   ^^  ^^^^^  ^^.^^  ^^^ 

TprSa  ve'in'ii  TatrTand  efficacy'  A-ordingly  while  the 
'^^L  of  Tesus'  death  as  positively  (i.e.  as  a  righteous  act  of  loving 
obedS  atonTn^n  cL^^^^^  as  efficacious  to  change 

men's  mo  al  and  practical  relations  to  sin,  seems  here  present 

descript.on  of  that  m  his  low  y    ™^^    wl^  .^     ^.^^^^  ^^ 

Jesus  '  the  Son  of  '^';\'%'^'^^^^'^^^,  ^ith'which  the  sentence 
^^'  "'"t  Heed'  'Tf  esus  anticipaTed  hir  death  '  at  all,  '  he  must 
Tari-ntir^pteted  if af  s^eTvi^e.^n'd  as  redemptive  service  '  (Wood). 
See  further  on  xii.  i  ami  !""■  ^^'^i- 

(c)  FaiHi  m  Jisiis'  MessiahsMp  rewarded. 

Luke  wm'ss'ir  !»<:»""«"«"  "'*  ""=  i"d>i«^"'.  I'"™''""^'^ 

;!"'•'  Mii°irdyer".„tcile,ypo1„s  to  its  having  stood  in  the 
t  Ja"  c„ti  "o^  m  of  Ihe  G'o^pel  of  J-s  .he  ^hr  St,  part,, 

^^anrsrw;"  rw^r:  incitr;;xv;:^»"  - »». 

/c;'M<?.fl/^«mn/c^«^0' of  the  next  section 

AC     And   thev  come   to  Jericho.     It    is    not    staiea    wni-uv.^. 

"  ^''%;!eirtUtvTof  ,he\Lrer;=?,or  i'.Tt^^^^^ 
S^elS  tt  It™  criTht  a  cluster  of  w,-c,cl,ed  hovels  co„,a.n. 

k.tirtt-'ttTu  ro'iti'CsSs^:;;:j-oeI^e5 
r4o!rov;hf-h;;frsrdl:j^'«r;^s' 'sri^ 

n  glowhig  terms  of  its  climate,  its  fountain,  its  ^(-^"-wf  ^  ^^^"^^^3 
fcr&fn,  its  garden  full  of  trees,  its  palms  of  different  kmds,  Us 
luxuriant  vegetation  {Wars,  iv.  viu.  2-3). 

and   as    he   went    out    ftom   Jericho:    i.e.    alter   cauing 


ST.  MARK  10.  47-49.     XMk  309 

Jericho,  with  his  disciples  and  a  great  multitude,  the  son 
of  Timaeus,  Bartimseus,  a  blind  beggar,  was  sitting  by  the 
way  side.  And  when  he  heard  that  it  was  Jesus  of  4? 
Nazareth,  he  began  to  cry  out,  and  say,  Jesus,  thou  son 
of  David,  have  mercy  on  me.  And  many  rebuked  him,  48 
that  he  should  hold  his  peace :  but  he  cried  out  the 
more  a  great  deal.  Thou  son  of  David,  have  mercy  on 
me.     And  Jesus  stood  still,  and  said.  Call  ye  him.     And  49 


Zacchaeus  (Luke  xix.  i  ff.\  Luke  gives  it  as  if  it  was  done  as 
he  drew  near  to  the  city,  a  clear  mark  of  his  special  source's 
influence. 

with  Ms  disciples  and  a  great  mnltitiide.  Jesus  entered 
the  city  and  left  it,  not  now  as  shunning  publicity,  but  in  the  st3'le 
of  a  great  Rabbi — or  rather  a  prophet — attended  by  his  disciples 
and  followed  by  a  crowd  of  curious  spectators,  made  larger  than 
usual  by  the  number  of  pilgrims  from  many  different  quarters  who 
met  here  on  their  way  to  Jerusalem. 

the  son  of  Timsetis.  This  is  a  translation  for  the  sake  of 
Gentile  readers  of  the  Aramaic  name  Bar-Timaeus. 

a  blind  beg'g'ar.  Two  blind  men,  according  to  Matthew  (xx. 
30) — a  sign  of  its  second  source.  Beggars  abounded  in  the 
ancient  East,  as  to-day,  and  gathered  in  numbers  at  the  times  of  the 
great  feasts  at  the  chief  points  along  the  pilgrimage  routes.  In 
many  cases  blindness,  that  frequent  malady  in  the  East,  caused  the 
misery  of  utter  poverty. 

4*7.  -when  he  heard  that  it  was  Jesus.  Perhaps  he  had  heard 
of  some  similar  case  among  the  healing  deeds  of  Jesus. 

son  of  David.  A  common  Messianic  title  (cf.  xii.  35).  So 
in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  of  nearly  a  century  before  this  date,  we 
read,  '  Raise  up  unto  them  their  King,  the  Son  of  David  '  (xvii.  22). 
The  blind  man  had  perhaps  caught  it  from  the  lips  of  those  whom 
he  asked  about  the  meaning  of  the  multitude  passing  him  (Luke 
xviii.  36).  In  any  case  his  cry  was  but  an  echo  of  the  popular 
feeling  then  growing  among  those  accompanying  Jesus.  The 
present  is  its  only  occurrence  in  Mark's  Gospel,  and  in  Luke  also  ; 
and  is  probably  significant  of  the  stage  now  reached  in  the  develop- 
ment of  popular  opinion  about  him  (cf  xi.  10). 

48.  rebuked  him:  i.e.  as  a  mere  beggar,  who  was  forgetting 
his  place  in  thus  demanding  attention. 

49.  Jesus  stood  still.  The  piteous  appeal  fell  at  last  on  ears 
ever  open  to  all  human  need.  There  is  a  pause  in  the  crowd's 
movement  ;  the  supplicant  is  called  at  the  command  of  Jesus,  as 


3IO 


ST.  MARK  10.  50-52-     XMk 


they  call  the  blind  man,  saying  unto  him,  Be  of  good 

50  cheer :  rise,  he  calleth  thee.     And  he,  casting  away  his 

51  garment,  sprang  up,  and  came  to  Jesus.  And  Jesus 
answered  him,  and  said.  What  wilt  thou  that  I  should 
do  unto  thee?      And  the  bUnd  man  said  unto   hmi, 

52  a  Rabboni,  that  I  may  receive  my  sight.  And  Jesus 
said  unto  him.  Go  thy  way  ;  thy  faith  hath  ^made  thee 
whole.  And  straightway  he  received  his  sight,  and 
followed  him  in  the  way. 

■^  See  John  xx.  16.     ^  Or>  ^"^^^  ^^'^^ 

it  passed  on  from  mouth  to  mouth  to  the  blind  man,  now  more 
sympathetically  regarded  in  the  light  of  this  Prophet  s  own  notice 

50.  he,  'casting  away  his  garment,  sprang  up.  Vivid  touches 
typical  of  Mark,  and  bringing  home  at  once  the  picture  ol  an 
insistent,  anxious  eagerness  that  could  not  tarry! 

51.  Rabboni.     An   Aramaic   equivalent  for   Rabbi,  Master  or 

^°52.^Jesixs"said'nnto  Win.  According  to  Matthew  Jesus 
touc/wd  the  eyes  of  the  two  blind  men.  But  according  to  Mark  and 
Luke  the  restoration  of  Bartimseus  was  effected  simply  by  a 
sovereign  word,  which  also  emphasized  the  co-operation  of  laitu 
on  the  part  of  the  subject  of  the  healing  (cf.  v.  34). 

E.     The  Last  Days  in  Jerusalem,     xi.  i-xv.  47. 

There  is  difficulty  here  as  to  the  order  of  events,  and  the  time 

and  circumstances  of  the  entry  into  the  city.     The  main  question 

is  as  to  the  exact  date  of  the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Bethany,  and  the 

time  at  which  the  supper  took  place  there.     According  to  John 

xii   I  he  came  to  Bethany  six  days  before  the  Passover,  and  spent 

the  night  there  before    passing  on  :    but  the  Synoptic  narrative 

implies  that  he  went  direct  to  Jerusalem.     So  with  the  supper  and 

the  anointing  at  Bethany.     Matthew  and  Mark  place  these  on  the 

eve  of  the  Paschal  season:   John  brings  them  in  before  the  Irium- 

phal  Entry,   probably  because,   on    his  view  that  Jesus   suHered 

when  the  Paschal  Lamb  was  slain,  he  could  not  put  them  where 

Mark  and  Matt.  do.     The  idea  that  Jesus?  entry  was  on  a  Sunday 

really  rests  only  on  John  xii.  i  (compare  'Passion  Week    in  IJie 

Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels),  and  hardly  leaves  room  for 

all  the  Synoptics   record  of  his  ministry  there  (sec  Mark  xi.  19, 

xiv.  49,  and  Luke  xxi.  37^ 

xi.  i-ii.     Public  entry  info  Jerusalem  and  visit  to  the  Tewple  (cl. 
Matt.  xxi.  1    II  ;   Luke  xix.  29-38  ;  John  xii.  i.  i2-tq). 


ST.  MARK  11.  1.     XMk  311 

[XMk]  And  when  they  draw  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  n 
unto  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  of  Olives, 


1 .  And  when  they  draw  nig'h  unto  Jerusalem.  It  appears 
that  they  came  direct  from  Jericho  to  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jerusalem,  i.  e.  to  the  villages  near  it.  The  distance  from  Jericho 
to  these  villages  was  about  fifteen  miles. 

unto  Bethphag'e  and  Bethany:  villages  on  or  near  the  road 
from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem,  about  where  it  begins  to  slope  up  the 
Mount  of  Olives  on  the  side  farthest  from  Jerusalem.  Bethphage 
('House  of  Figs')  occurs  in  the  Talmud,  but  its  site  cannot  be 
identified.  It  seems  to  have  been  rather  farther  from  Jerusalem 
than  Bethany  ('House  of  dates'),  a  village  lying  on  the  S.  E. 
slope  of  the  mount  of  Olives,  fifteen  furlongs,  or  a  little  less  than 
two  miles,  from  Jerusalem  (John  xi.  i,  18,  xii.  i).  In  it  was  the 
house  of  Simon  the  leper  (xiv.  3),  also  the  home  of  Lazarus  and  his 
sisters  (John).  It  too  is  never  mentioned  in  the  O.  T.  Since  the 
fourth  century  its  site  has  been  identified  with  that  of  the  village 
known  as  El-Aznriycli,  '  the  place  of  Lazarus,'  a  cluster  of  some 
twent3'  houses  inhabited  by  Bedouin  Arabs.  Dean  Stanle}'  speaks 
of  it  as  now  'a  wild  mountain  hamlet,  screened  by  an  intervening 
ridge  from  the  view  of  the  top  of  Olivet,  perched  on  its  broken 
plateau  of  rock,  the  last  collection  of  human  habitation  before  the 
desert  hills  which  reach  to  Jericho'  [Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  186). 

In  MSS.  noticed  by  Origen,  on  Matt.  xxi.  i,  Mark  had  only 
Bethany,  Matthew  Bethphage,  Luke  both.  D.  and  Old  Lat. 
confirm  Origen's  testimony.  The  reference  to  '  the  village '  in  v.  2 
might  well  cause  the  omission  of  Bethphage. 

the  mount  of  Olives.  In  the  O.  T.  we  read  of  '  the  mount 
that  is  before  Jerusalem  '  (i  Kings  xi.  7),  'the  mountain  which  is 
on  the  east  side  of  the  city '  (Ezek,  xi.  23),  *  the  ascent  of  the 
rnotntt  q/"  Olives  '  (R.  V.,2  Sam.  xv.  30^.  The  particular  form 
'the  mount  of  Olives'  occurs  in  the  O.  T.  only  in  Zech.  xiv.  4. 
The  whole  ridge  of  limestone  hills  \ymg  on  the  east  of  Jerusalem, 
and  separated  from  it  by  the  valley  of  the  Kidron,  seems  to  have 
been  spoken  of  as  '  the  mount  of  Olives.'  More  properly  the 
name  is  given  to  the  middle  of  the  three  chief  eminences  of  that 
ridge,  the  one  on  the  north  being  known  as  mount  Scopus,  and  the 
other  on  the  south  as  the  mount  of  Offence  (see  Robinson,  Biblical 
Researches,  i.  274).  The  'mount'  rises  to  the  height  of  about  200 
feet  above  the  temple,  ar.d  over  2,600  feet  above  the  level  of  the 
Mediterranean.  Dean  Stanley  speaks  of  the  vision,  too  great  for 
words,  which  it  offers  to  the  Christian  traveller  of  all  times,  as  the 
most  detailed  and  the  most  authentic  abiding-place  of  Jesus  Christ ' 
{Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  i8q\ 


312  ST.  MARK  11.  2.     XMk 

2  he  sendeth  two  of  his  disciples,  and  saith  unto  them,  Go 
your  way  into  the  village  that  is  over  against  you  :  and 
straightway  as  ye  enter  into  it,  ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied, 
whereon  no  man  ever  yet  sat ;  loose  him,  and  bring  him. 


sendeth  two  of  his  disciples.  It  is  suggested  with  some 
reason  that  Peter  was  one  of  them,  the  account  given  by  Marie 
here  pointing  to  the  recollections  of  one  present  on  the  occasion 
(cf.  xiv.  13).  Jesus'  idea  in  sending  comes  out  in  the  sequel,  7  ff. 
2.  the  village  that  is  over  ag-ainst  you.  Probably  Bethany 
(cf.  note  above),  especially  as  it  seems  to  be  a  place  where  Jesus 
had  friends  (see  xiv.  3,  and  compare  Luke  x.  38-42  witii  John  xi. 
I,  for  Lazarus  and  his  two  sisters). 

a  colt.  To  a  Greek  this  would  mean  a  young  horse  ;  to 
a  Jew,  a  young  ass  (cf.  Gen.  xxxii,  15,  xlix.  11  ;  Judges  x.  4, 
xii.  14,  and  especially  Zech.  ix.  9).  Matthew  quotes  the  passage 
in  Zechariah,  and  finds  its  fulfilment  in  the  present  event,  taking 
it  (mistakenly)  to  refer  to  an  ass  and  a  colt,  that  is,  the  colt  with 
his  mother. 

whereon  no  man  ever  yet  sat :  as  was  appropriate  in  the 
case  of  a  beast  meant  for  a  sacred  service.  See  tlie  provisions  in 
the  Mosaic  Law  (Num.  xix.  2 ;  Deut.  xxi.  3).  This  may  be 
a  touch  due  to  tradition  (it  does  not  occur  in  Matt.),  as  it  sounds 
strangely  on  the  speaker's  own  lips.  Mark  gives  it  and  other 
features  of  the  situation  as  the  disciples  were  to  find  it,  as  if 
known  to  Jesus  beforehand  by  supernatural  '  second  sight.'  But 
it  is  possible  that  the  impression  arose  in  the  tradition  of  the  story, 
as  heightening  touches  added  to  the  original  fact  that  Jesus  sent 
confidently  to  the  village  for  what  he  needed,  relying  on  the 
circumstance  that  he  had  a  friend  there,  possibly  Lazarus  (or 
Simon  the  leper,  xiv.  3),  who  could  be  counted  on  to  supply 
whatsoever  'the  Master'  wanted — if  indeed  there  was  no  previous 
understanding.  Jesus,  as  a  visitor  (on  some  former  visit  to 
Jerusalem)  at  the  house  of  Lazarus  and  his  sisters,  would  be 
known  to  their  servants  also,  and  to  the  villagers  generally;  hence 
the  forecast  of  verse  3.  Some  features  of  the  incident,  then, 
reflect  what  the  disciples  found,  rather  than  what  they  were  led 
to  expect  ;  but  the  two  would  easily  become  fused  in  tlie  telling  of 
the  story  ;  and  the  fitness  of  the  3'oung  ass  never  having  been 
ridden  by  any  other  would  strike  the  minds  of  disciples,  looking 
back  on  the  whole  happenings  of  that  memorable  day  in  their 
Master's  career,  as  more  than  accidental  and  so  .is  foreseen  by 
Jesus  himself  (in  the  similar  case  in  xiv.  rafi'.,  touching  the  finding 
of  the  Upper  Room,  pre-arraiigement  between  Jesus  and  the  host 
is  probable  :  see  notes").    The  variations  in  Matthew,  especially  all 


ST.  MARK  11.  3-7.     XMk  313 

And  if  any  one  say  unto  you,  Why  do  ye  this  ?  say  ye,  3 
The  Lord  hath  need  of  him ;  and  straightway  he  ^  will 
send   him   ^  back   hither.     And    they   went   away,   and  4 
found  a  colt  tied  at  the  door  without  in  the  open  street ; 
and  they  loose  him.     And  certain  of  them  that  stood  5 
there  said  unto  them,  What  do  ye,  loosing  the  colt? 
And  they  said  unto  them  even  as  Jesus  had  said :  and  6 
they  let  them  go.     And  they  bring  the  colt  unto  Jesus,  7 
and  cast  on  him  their  garments ;  and  he  sat  upon  him. 

*  Gr.  sendeth  ^  Or,  again 

being  viewed  as  foretold  in  Zech.  ix.  g,  point  to  enhancements  of 
this  sort  as  likely  to  arise. 

3.  The  Lord  hath  need  of  him  :  better  '  The  Master '  (cf.  John 
xiii.  13),  used  of  a  Rabbi  or  revered  Teacher  among  the  Jews. 
What  follows  about  his  returning  the  animal  promptly  makes  any 
other  meaning  less  appropriate. 

and  straig'htway  he  will  send  him  hack  hither :  lit. 
'sendeth,'  a  Semitic  prophetic  present.  Matthew  has  ' and  straight- 
IV ay  he  will  send ^''  with  reference  to  the  man's  readiness  to  send 
the  animal(s).  Mark's  words  express  the  undertaking  that  the  colt 
will  not  be  kept  longer  than  is  required,  but  will  be  returned 
promptly. 

4.  in  the  open  street.  The  word  means  'the  way  round' 
a  house,  and  so  the  open  street  or  lane. 

5.  certain  of  them  that  stood  there.  This  might  mean  those 
hanging  about,  as  village  people  are  accustomed  to  do  in  idle  hours. 
Luke  imagines  the  owners  as  the  persons  who  put  the  questions  to 
the  two  disciples.  Most  of  the  villagers  must  have  known  Jesus 
sufficiently  well  to  make  them  ready  to  let  the  animal  be  removed 
for  his  use. 

*J.  cast  on  him  their  garments.  An  unused  colt  would  not 
be  provided  with  trappings.  The  disciples  put  some  of  their  own 
garments  on  the  creature,  to  serve  as  a  saddle. 

he  sat  upon  him.  Jesus'  action  in  arranging  and  carrying 
out  this  form  of  entry  to  Jerusalem  was  suggested  by  and  meant 
to  suggest  to  others  the  prophecy  of  Zechanah  ix.  9-1 1.  The 
ass  was  the  symbol  of  peace,  in  contrast  with  the  horse,  which 
was  the  symbol  of  war ;  and  suited  fully  Jesus'  idea  of  his  voca- 
tion in  terms  of  the  peaceful  King  of  Zech.  ix.  In  seating  him- 
self on  the  colt  Jesus  left  behind  him  the  time  of  silence  or  reserve, 
and  publicly  affirmed,  though  only  in  a  way  which  sugcrested  a 
peaceful  or  prophetic  type  of  leadership,  his  claim  to  be  the  Messiah. 


314  ST.  MARK  11.  8,  9.     X^k 

8  And  many  spread  their  garments  upon  the  way ;  and 
others  a  branches,  which  they  had  cut  from  the  fields. 

9  And  they  that  went  before,  and  they  that  followed,  cried, 
Hosanna ;  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 

*  Gr.  layers  of  leaves  

8.  And  many  spread  tHeir  garments  upon  the  way:  not  the 
Twelve  only,  but  many  more  who  were  followers  in  different  de- 
grees The  act  was  one  of  homage,  such  as  was  done  to  kings  as 
ihey  entered  cities.     See  the  case  of  Jehu  (2  Kings  ix    13). 

others  branches :  or  better,  as  in  the  margin  of  the  K.  V., 
qavers  of  leaves.'  The  word  is  applicable  to  leafy  twigs,  long 
grass,  reeds,  rushes,  and  the  like  forms  of  'litter.'  So  the  enthu- 
siasm spread,  and  took  the  form  of  carpeting  the  way  for  him  with 

green  stuff.  ^,  .  .         r>   ^.u 

which  they  had  cut  from  the  fields.  The  road  from  Bethany 
to  Jerusalem,  winding  as  it  did  by  cultivated  fields  and  gardens, 
or  plantations  of  fruit-trees,  would  readily  provide  material  for 

the  purpose.  ,      t    i 

9  they  that  went  before,  and  they  that  followed.  Luke  xix 
07  (i  e  his  special  source)  says  that  it  was  '  the  whole  mass  of 
disciples'  that  began  to  acclaim  Jesus  'at  the  descent  of  the 
Mount  '  i.  e.  from  its  crest,  as  the  '  city  of  David  '  came  into  view, 
and  onwards  (cf.  39)-  Thus  what  follows  was  not  the  utterance 
of  the  whole  multitude  of  pilgrims  necessarily  (as  Matt,  imphes), 
but  rather  of  Jesus'  special  company  in  one  sense  or  another. 
The  multitudes  which  would  more  and  more  throng  round  them, 
while  joining  perhaps  in  the  '  Hosanna '  cry,  usual  with  pilgrims 
approaching  the  Holy  City  at  Passover  time,  would  not  share  m 
any  Messianic  acclamation  of  Jesus,  though  ready  to  repeat  Ihis 
is  the  prophet,  Jesus,  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee'  (Matt.  xxi.  ii). 

See  next  note.  . 

Hosanna :  '  save  now.'  This  is  properly  speaking  a  prayer  ; 
and  the  invocation  was  here  made  repeatedly,  as  the  verb  implies. 
It  is  the  '  Save  now  '  of  verse  25  of  Psalm  cxviii,  a  psalm  closely 
associated  with  the  national  hope  of  Israel  (cf.  xii.  10  f.).  It  was 
written  to  celebrate  some  great  occasion  in  the  national  history - 
as  some  think,  the  triumph  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  and  his  purifica- 
tion of  the  temple  in  165  B.C.  (i  Mace.  iv.  37-59)-  ^'i'''^;" 
(Jottrn.  of  Theol.  Studies,  xvii.  141  ff.)  calls  attention  to  the  affinity 
between  the  use  of  green  branches  and  the  cry  Hosanna  here 
and  in  the  Maccabean  Feast  of  Rededication  of  the  Temple.  1  his 
was  itself  the  central  act  of  a  great  national  salvation  of  Israel 
religiously,  as  well  as  from  alien  rule,  and  so  was  full  of  Messianic 
associations  akin  to  those  of  Zech.  ix.  9-1  r,  which  filled  Jesus 
thoughts  at  this  time  and  probably  entered  into  his  words  to  his 


ST.  MARK  11.  lo,  II.     XMk  315 

Lord  :  Blessed  is  the  kingdom  that  cometh,  the  kingdom  10 
of  our  father  Uavid  :  Hosanna  in  the  highest. 

And  he  entered  into  Jerusalem,  into  the  temple;  and  u 

disciples.  A  renewal  of  the  true  worship  of  Israel's  God  would 
be  his  central  theme  as  he  approached  the  Holy  City.  Of  this  he 
was  the  Prophet  in  the  minds  of  all  who  heard  him  or  of  him — 
whether  as  Messiah  also,  or  not,  would  be  a  point  on  which  his  dis- 
ciples and  the  crowd  generally  would  be  divided  in  opinion.  This 
explains  how  for  a  time  these  two  circles  of  sympathizers  seemed 
to  be  at  one,  falling  apart  ere  long  as  his  action  failed  to  answer 
to  Messianic  expectations.  The  new  Purification  of  the  Temple 
marked  the  climax  of  such  ambiguit}',  and  so  of  popularity  for  the 
Prophet  of  Nazareth.  When  he  failed  to  follow  it  up  by  other 
striking  acts,  though  his  teaching  appealed  to  the  more  religiously 
minded  of  the  masses,  it  was  not  enough  :  he  was  felt  to  be  falling 
short  of  the  lole  of  kingly'  national  deliverer  ;  and  enthusiasm  first 
cooled  and  then  changed  to  scorn. 

Blessed  is  (or  be)  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Iiord : 
from  Ps.  cxviii.  26.  In  the  Psalm  (where  '  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  '  goes  with  'blessed ')  the  sentence  is  a  word  of  greeting  to 
the  pilgrim  who  comes  to  the  temple  at  the  feast  Here  it  is  a 
greeting  addressed  to  Jesus,  by  his  special  following  ;  and  it  is  pos- 
sible that  a  Messianic  interpretation  or  application  had  been  given 
before  to  the  Psalm,  or  to  this  part  of  it  (see  xii.  10  f.,  where  the 
verses  just  before  are  quoted  by  Jesus  himself  as  Messianic ;  cf. 
Matt,  xxiii.  39). 

10.  Blessed  is  (or  be)  the  king'dom  that  cometh.  An  ex- 
pansion of  the  words  of  the  Psalm,  recognizing  that  in  the  entry 
of  Jesus  on  the  colt  into  Jerusalem  the  kingdom  that  was  promised 
to  come  was  being  inaugurated.  And  this  'kingdom'  is  called 
^  the  kingdom  of  our  father  David,'  as  to  be  of  Davidic  type. 

Eosanna  in  the  hig^hest:  i.e.  'in  high  Heaven.'  Cf.  the 
angels'  song  (Luke  ii.  14).  It  is  a  prayer  for  such  'salvation  '  to 
be  heard  in  high  heaven,  where  God  reigns  :  compare  DidachS, 
X.  6,  '  Hosanna  to  the  God  of  David.'  Luke  completes  the  picture 
b^'  introducing  the  protest  of  the  Pharisees  among  the  multitude 
against  the  language  of  tiie  disciples  (39  f.),  the  tears  of  Jesus  as 
he  saw  the  cit\'.  and  his  lamentation  over  its  impending  doom 
(xix.  4i-44\  They  are  full  of  value  for  Jesus'  own  outlook  and 
feelings  at  this  crisis  in  his  career,  when  he  felt  all  had  come  to  the 
final  test :  notably  '  I  tell  you  that  if  these  should  hold  their  peace, 
the  stones  will  cry  out,'  as  if  echoing  the  note  of  Ps.  cxviii.  23  f. 

H.  into  the  temple.  Passing  into  the  cit}',  he  rroved  on  at 
once  to  the  place  which  gave  it  chief  significance.  Bj'  'the  tcmpile  ' 
here   is  meant  not  the  shrine  itself,  the  'house  of  God'  proper 


3t6  ST.  MARK  11.  12,  13.    X^k 

when  he  had  looked  round  about  upon  all  things,  it  being 
now  eventide,  he  went  out  unto  Bethany  with  the  twelve. 

12  And  on  the  morrow,  when  they  were  come  out  from 

13  Bethany,  he  hungered.     And  seeing  a  fig  tree  afar  off 

(Matt.  xii.  4),  but  its  precincts,  the  sacred  enclosure.  He  would 
enter  by  the  eastern  gate  into  the  court  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
traffic  in  sacred  offerings,  &c.,  which  desecrated  the  place,  incon- 
gruous as  it  was,  went  on  in  the  outer  courts. 

looked  round  about.  His  searching,  indignant  glance  took 
in  the  whole  scene  and  prepared  him  for  the  action  of  the  morrow. 
As  it  was  late,  he  did  no  more  that  day.  In  Matthew  and  Luke 
the  account  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  follows  immediately  on 
that  of  the  entry  into  the  city,  as  would  seem  most  natural  to  those 
handing  on  the  tradition  without  more  specific  knowledge  such  as 
Peter  would  possess.  Probably  Mark's  account  is,  as  usual,  the 
more  exact  and  circumstantial. 

he  went  out  unto  Bsthany  with  the  twelve.  This  lie  did 
each  evening  for  several  days  at  least  (cf.  ig  and  xiv.  49,  and 
see  Luke  xxi.  37").  The  word  used  both  by  Matthew  (xxi.  17) 
and  Luke  (xxi.  37)  of  his  sojourning  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  (at 
Bethany)  is  one  which  originally  meant  '  bivouacking '  out  of  doors, 
like  the  flocks  and  herds  ;  but  it  can  also  mean  simply  to  ■  lodge'  ; 
e.g.  Tobit  xiv.  10,  'no  longer  lodge  in  Nineveh.'  We  may  per- 
haps imagine  Jesus  doing  this  with  Martha  and  Mary  ;  and  it  may 
even  be  that  the  beautiful  story  about  their  entertainment  of  him  in 
Luke  X.  38-42  really  belongs  to  this  occasion.  Certainly  it  would 
be  one  on  which  Martha  might  well  be  *  distracted '  about  the 
'much  serving'  needed  for  so  many  guests  at  the  table,  and 
'  anxious  and  upset  about  many  things '  connected  therewith. 

xi.   12-14.   ^/'^  Barren  Fig-tree  (cf.    Matt.  xvi.    18,   19).     This 
incident  is  left  unnoticed  by  Luke,  probabl}'  as  not  in  his  special 
'source,  and  as  having  intrinsic  difficulties  for  him  as  for  us.     It  is 
reported  by  Matthew  and  Mark  in  the  same  connexion, 

12.  on  the  morrow:  i.e.  of  the  Triumphal  Entry. 

he  hungered.  This  would  be  strange  under  the  circumstances 
of  his  lodging  at  Bethany.  In  view  too  of  other  features  in  this 
incident  which  seem  hardly  original  (see  note  on  verse  20),  this 
touch  may  be  secondary,  being  meant  to  explain  Jesus'  going  to 
examine  the  fig-tree.  Possibly  he  simply  noted  its  peculiarity  as 
he  passed  it  on  the  roadside  (Matt.  xxi.  19),  and  took  it  as  the  text 
of  an  'object-lesson'  parable  on  the  seemingly  flourishing  but 
really  unfruitful  state  of  Judaism.  Thus  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
in  Luke  xiii.  6-9  we  have  a  parable  comparing  the  spiritual  state 
of  the  chosen  People  to  that  of  an  unfruitful  Fig-tree,  to  which  is 
granted  a  brief  respite  for  further  trial,  under  the  special  care  of 


ST.  MARK  11.  14.     XMk  3x7 

having  leaves,  he  came,  if  haply  he  might  find  anything 
thereon :  and  when  he  came  to  it,  he  found  nothing  but 
leaves;    for   it   was   not   the   season  of  figs.     And  he  14 

the  patient  vine-dresser  who  pleads  for  another  chance  for  it. 
This  looks  like  Jesus'  attitude  to  current  Judaism  at  an  earlier 
stage  in  his  ministry  to  Israel  :  and  that  he  should  now  at  a  later 
stage — the  trial  completed — return  to  the  same  simile,  under  the 
suggestion  of  a  visible  object-lesson  offering  itself  to  his  use,  is 
most  likely.  Then  in  the  course  of  tradition  the  actual  basis  in 
fact  for  the  analogy  may  have  been  extended  and  enhanced  in 
effect  by  words  really  spoken  parabolically,  about  Israel's  having 
no  further  period  of  probation  now  before  it  (cf.  the  Parable  of  the 
Vineyard  in  ch.  xii.  i  ff.),  becoming  referred  to  the  fig-tree  itself. 
Thus  the  notion  would  naturally  arise  that  Jesus  had  rebuked  or 
'  cursed '  it  for  its  unfruitfulness,  and  that  his  words  had  imme- 
diately (in  Matthew's  account,  before  the  spectators'  very  eyes — a 
clear  enhancement,  as  compared  even  with  Mark's  tradition) 
authenticated  themselves  by  the  tree's  '  withering  away  from  the 
roots.'  Thus  a  spiritual  parable  became  a  nature-miracle,  one  too 
which  raises  special  difficulties  as  being  a  'sign'  of  the  merely 
marvellous  order  which  Jesus  is  elsewhere  stated  to  have  refused 
to  work.  Such  a  view  of  the  original  occurrence,  and  of  its 
gradual  and  unconscious  transformation  by  misunderstanding  in 
tradition,  is  further  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  in  Mark  the  promise 
in  verse  23,  there  given  as  an  encouragement  to  the  disciples' 
faith  (as  its  present  context  suggests)  to  expect  God  to  work  nature- 
miracles  at  their  word,  is  in  Luke  xvii.  3-6  spoken  in  response  to 
their  plea  'increase  our  faith  ',  in  order  to  enable  them  to  rise  to  quite 
another  form  of  miracle,  viz.  the  forgiveness  of  one's  erring  brother 
even  '  seven  times  a  day.'  Trace  of  this  original  reference  may 
survive  inverse  25,  which  otherwise  seems  quite  out  of  place  here. 
13.  having'  leaves.  The  sight  of  the  tree  in  leaf  suggested 
that  '  baply  '  there  might  be  an  equally  precocious  growth  ot  fruit 
on  it.     For  in  the  case  of  the  fig-tree  the  leaf  comes  relatively  late. 

nothing"  but  leaves.  On  approaching  the  tree  he  discovered 
that  its  abnormal  forwardness  was  confined  to  foliage,  and  that 
there  were  not  even  young  figs  on  it. 

for  it  was  not  the  season  of  figs.  An  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  no  fruit  was  found  on  the  tree.  In  Palestine  figs  are  gathered 
early  in  May,  or  more  usually  in  June.  But  it  was  yet  only  the 
season  of  the  Passover,  which  fell  between  late  March  and  t.he 
middle  of  April.  The  point  here  is  the  association  of /fa/and//^M»V, 
the  fact  that  where  the  green  foliage  is  seen,  there  fruit  is  to  be 
expected.  But  in  this  case  no  fruit  of  any  kind  was  discovered. 
A  fig-tree  in  leaf,  unless  its  appearance  was  a  deception,  should 
have  frutt  on  it,  green  fruit  at  least.     But  this  tree  had  nothing 


3i8  ST.  MARK  11.  15.     X™"^ 

answered  and  said  unto  it,  No  man  eat  fruit  from  thee 
henceforward  for  ever.     And  his  disciples  heard  it. 
'5      And  they  come  to  Jerusalem  :  and  he  entered  into  the 
temple,  and  began  to  cast  out  them  that  sold  and  them 

except  leaves.  It  belied  its  professiorijand  this  was  its  condemna- 
tion. So  Jesus  makes  it  an  object-lesson,  to  convey  to  the  minds 
of  his  disciples  a  vivid  idea  of  the  moral  attitude  of  the  Jewish 
people,  and  the  doom  involved  in  a  religion  of  much  profession 
but  spiritual  barrenness. 

14.  No  man  eat  fmit  from  thee  henceforward  for  ever.  In 
the  parable  of  the  Fig-tree  Jesus  had  already  dealt  with  the  matter 
of  confirmed  unfruitfulness  (Luke  xiii.  6-9).  But  there  the  vine- 
dresser's reply  suggests  that  it  was  at  an  earlier  stage  in  the 
ministry,  when  yet  there  might  be  some  hope  of  betterment  in  the 
nation's  response  to  the  call  lor  Repentance  and  preparedness  for  the 
Kingdom  to  appear.  (Yet  such  a  parable,  already  reported,  would 
help  Luke  to  decide  on  omitting  the  present  incident,  as  its  moral 
had  so  far  been  anticipated  in  the  parable.)  Here,  however, 
Jesus — '  answering'  the  suggestion  of  the  tree's  condition — speaks 
of  an  unfruitfulness  which  is  aggravated  by  vain,  deceptive  pro- 
fession :  the  tree  failed  to  make  good  in  any  way  the  promise  so 
amply  displayed  to  the  eye.  And  this  was  just  like  the  Judaism 
of  '  the  holy  city,'  with  its  temple  services,  as  compared  even  with 
that  of  Galilee.  Of  this  thought  the  next  incident,  the  Cleansing 
of  the  Temple,  itself  affords  illustration.  The  sentence,  then, 
which  he  pronounced  upon  it — as  continuing  the  symbolism  of  the 
visible  parable — was  purely  with  a  view  to  the  moral  instruction  of 
his  disciples.  Mark's  comment  'and  his  disciples  heard  it '  pro- 
bably prepares  for  Peter's  remark  in  the  sequel  (verse  21). 

xi.  15-19  The  Purging  0/ the  Temple  (cf.  Matt.  xxi.  12-17; 
Luke  xix.  45-48).  The  Fourth  Gospel  reports  a  cleansing  of  the 
temple  (John  ii.  13-17)  at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
The  three  Synoptic  Gospels  agree  in  recording  one  at  the  close  of 
his  ministry.  The  acts  were  similar  :  diflerencesin  the  details  are 
not  greater  than  is  commonly  the  case  in  the  narrative  of  events 
confessedly  the  same,  as  reported  by  the  Synoptists  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel  respectively.  If  one  has  to  choose  between  the  occasions, 
then  this  one  is  to  be  preferred,  as  more  organically  related  to  the 
whole  course  of  Jesus'  ministry,  as  well  as  resting  on  earlier 
documents. 

15.  he  entered  into  the  temple.  His  purpose  was  to  do  what 
his  brief  inspection  on  the  previous  evening  showed  him  to  be 
necessary.  The  act  was  a  striking  challenge  to  the  existing  order 
in  religion,  one  implying  too  the  high  prophetic  authority — in  fact 
practically  Messianic  (,cf.  his  recent  Entry  of  the  City)— to  which 


ST.  MARK   11.  i6,  ry.     X^k  319 

that  bought  in  the  temple,  and  overthrew  the  tables  of 
the  money-changers,  and  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  the 
doves ;   and  he  would  not  suffer  that  any  man  should  1 6 
carry  a  vessel  through  the  temple.     And  he  taught,  and  17 
said  unto  them,  Is   it  not  written,  My  house  shall  be 
called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  the  nations  ?  but  ye  have 


he  now  felt  called  in  God's  Providence  to  lay  claim  openly,  so 
bringing  things  to  a  religious  crisis  for  the  Kingdom  he  had  been 
*  sent '  to  set  up. 

cast  out  them  that  sold  and  them  that  honght.  Sellers 
and  buyers  were  alike  dead  to  the  sense  of  what  the  temple  meant. 
The  market  in  question  had  been  allowed  a  place  within  the  temple 
precincts  on  the  plea  of  public  convenience.  Itdealtonlj  with  things 
required  for  the  temple  services,  victims  for  the  various  offerings, 
wine,  oil,  salt,  and  the  like  ;  and  it  had  the  sanction  of  the  chief 
priests.  It  saved  trouble,  enabling  all  to  obtain  on  the  spot  what 
they  needed  for  sacred  use.  But  it  had  become  a  great  abuse. 
The  sordid,  mercantile  spirit,  with  its  tendency  to  greed  and 
fraud,  meant  spiritual  desecration. 

tables  of  the  money-changers.  Every  Jew  had  to  pay  a  tax 
of  a  half-shekel  annually  for  the  support  of  the  temple,  and  it  had 
to  be  paid  in  Jewish  money  (Matt.  xvii.  24  ;  Exod.  xxx.  13,  &c.). 
Pilgrims  who  brought  Gentile  money  had  to  get  Jewish  coin  for  it. 
The  money-changers  reaped  large  profits  at  the  time  of  the  great 
festivals.  They  were  allowed  to  make  a  large  profit  on  each  half- 
shekel  exchanged. 

them  that  sold  the  doves.  It  was  provided  by  the  Levitical 
law  that  doves  might  be  offered  in  certain  cases  by  those  who 
were  unable  to  purchase  lambs  (Lev.  xii.  8  ;  cf  Luke  ii.  22). 
Doves  were  also  the  ofTerings  prescribed  in  some  other  cases,  such 
as  the  cleansing  of  lepers,  &c.  (Lev.  xiv.  22,  xv.  14,  29). 

16.  carry  a  vessel  through  the  temple.  This,  too,  is  peculiar 
to  Mark.  The  word  '  vessel '  here  is  applicable  to  any  kind  of 
implement  or  any  article  of  household  use.  People  had  got  into 
the  habit  of  taking  a  short  cut  through  the  precincts  of  the  temple. 
This  had  been  forbidden  by  the  Jewish  authorities.  But  the 
prohibition  had  fallen  into  neglect,  and  Jesus  enforces  it  anew. 

17.  taught.  The  gist  of  his  explanation  of  his  startling  action 
was  as  follows. 

a  house  of  prayer  for  all  the  nations.  The  quotation  is 
from  Isa.  Ivi.  7.  The  prophecy  in  Isaiah  spoke  of  those  'that  join 
themselves  to  the  Lord,  to  minister  unto  Him,'  as  being  brought 
along  with  the  chosen  people  from  exile  to  God's  '  hoi}'  mountain  '  ; 
as  made  joyful  in  His  '  house   of  prayer ' ;    and  as  laying  their 


320  ST.  MARK  11.  18.     X^k 

18  made  it  a  den  of  robbers.  And  the  chief  priests  and  the 
scribes  heard  it,  and  sought  how  they  might  destroy  him  : 
for  they  feared  him,  for  all  the  multitude  was  astonished 
at  his  teaching. 

offerings  and  sacrifices  with  acceptance  on  his  altar.  Mark  alone 
introduces  this  mention  of '  the  nations,'  appropriate  as  it  is  to  a  dis- 
course whichhasitsoccasion  in  a  desecration  proceeding  in  the  court 
of  the  Gentiles.  But  as  Matthew  and  Luke  both  omit  it,  it  is  possibly 
a  completion  of  the  quotation  added  in  a  gospel  mainly  for  non-Jews. 
ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  robbers.  This  echoes  another 
prophet,  Jeremiah  (vii.  ii).  Secularity  had  turned  into  dishonesty, 
as  traders  enriched  themselves  at  the  cost  of  those  who  came  to  offer 
their  oblations  to  God. 

May  one  not  well  believe  that  it  was  on  this  occasion  that  Jesus 
uttered  the  striking  saying — which  actually  follows  in  the  narra- 
tive in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (misplacing  it  in  time  though  it  does) — 
in  reply  to  the  authorities'  challenge  of  his  right  to  interfere  with 
Temple  arrangements  as  he  had  done  ?  '  Pull  down  [as  you  bid 
fair  to  do  by  the  spirit  of  your  religious  policy]  this  temple  (that  is 
made  with  hands,  cf.  Mark  xiv.  58),  and  in  three  days  (  =  very 
shortly)  I  will  build  another  (not  made  with  hands).'  Such  seems 
to  have  been  the  original  form  and  meaning  of  this  saying,  which 
was  quoted  in  a  garbled  form  ('I  will  destroy  ')  by  witnesses  at 
Jesus'  examination  before  the  High  Priest  (xiv.  58 )  :  and  it  would 
give  the  more  meaning  to  the  description  of  the  attitude  of  the 
chief  priests  and  scribes  which  follows  here  in  verse  18.  So 
ariesting  a  symbolic  saying  would  also  become  the  talk  of  the 
crowd,  which  was  greatly  impressed  by  the  note  of  spiritual  power 
and  assured  authority  in  his  teaching  (iS"*).  Reaction  from  its 
vague  expectations  of  some  striking  deed  of  supernatural  might  on 
behalf  of  his  claims,  would  best  explain  what  seems  the  fickle 
attitude  of  the  mob  in  turning  against  Jesus  when  he  was  meek  in 
the  hands  of  the  powers  that  were,  at  and  after  his  arrest :  cf.  xv. 
29,  which  may  perhaps  be  the  scorn  of  disappointed  hope. 

18.  chief  priests  and  the  scribes.  The  chief  priests  here 
naturally  come  on  the  scene  as  the  Temple  authorities.  This  is 
the  first  occasion  of  their  appearance  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
Luke  adds  '  the  chief  men  of  the  people,'  that  is,  prominent  repre- 
sentatives, probably  the  elders  (xix.  47).  All  the  leading  classes 
now  went  hand  in  hand,  contriving  how  to  get  rid  of  Jesus,  as 
threatening  seemingly  to  become  a  Messianic  agitator,  ready  to 
resort  to  methods  of  force. 

sought  . .  .  feared  .  .  .  was  astonished.  These  verbs,  unlike 
'  heard,'  express  continual  action.  The  authorities  saw  that  he  had 
now  multitudes  of  the  common  people  with  him,  under  the  spell 


ST.  MARK  11.  19-22.     XMk  321 

And  a  every  evening  ^^he  went  forth  out  of  the  city.        19 

And  as  they  passed  by  in  the  morning,  they  saw  the  fig  20 

tree  withered  away  from  the  roots.    And  Peter  caUing  to  21 

remembrance  saith  unto  him,  Rabbi,  behold,  the  fig  tree 

which    thou   cursedst    is    withered    away.      And   Jesus  23 

*  Gr.  w/ienever  evening  came 

^  Some  ancient  authorities  read  ihev  '•   cf.  verse  20. 


of  his  personality  and  teaching.     This  made  them  afraid  to  interfere 
openly. 

19.  every  evening-:  h't.  'whenever  it  became  late'  or  'even- 
tide.' This,  being  followed  by  the  tense  of  continued  action, 
describes  (unlike  v.  11)  Jesus'  custom  for  several  daj-s.     So  Luke 


teaching.'     The  verse  is  inserted  partly  with  a  view   to   what 
follows  in  verse  20. 

out  of  the  city :  Matthew  is  more  explicit  and  tells  us  it  was 
to  Bethany  (see  note  on  verse  11).  It  was  Jesus'  habit  during 
these  fateful  days  to  spend  his  active  hours  in  the  city,  and,  when  he 
could  no  longer  teach,  to  retire  to  the  quiet  hamlet  on  the  uplands 

xi.  20-25.    T/ie  IVitlieying  of  the  Fig-tree  (cf.  Matt.  xxi.  19-22). 

20.  as  they  passed  by  in  the  morningf:  lit.  'early,'  probably 
in  returning  to  the  city  (verse  19).  As  we  gather  from  Matthew 
(xxi.  19),  the  tree  was  by  the  side  of  the  public  road. 

they  saw  the  fig-  tvee  -withered  a-way.  Matthew  speaks  of 
the  tree  as  withering  immediately  after  Jesus  spoke  the  words, 
'  Let  there  be  no  fruit  from  thee  henceforward  for  ever  ' — in  fact 
before  the  very  eyes  of  the  disciples.  Probably  that  gospel  is  here 
(as  in  its  different  order  of  the  Cleansing  of  the  Temple)  follow- 
ing a  source  other  than  Mark.  And  this  development  in  the 
marvellous  element  beyond  that  found  in  Mark  suggests  that  even 
his  form  of  the  story  may  have  undergone  enhancement  in  the 
course  of  tradition,  just  as  it  has  evidently  lost  a  main  original 
element,  namely  the  application  to  the  spiritual  conditions  of 
Judaism,  which  must  have  been  explained  to  the  disciples.  While 
we  have  not  the  means  of  recovering  with  assurance  the  full  and 
true  history  of  the  episode,  from  first  to  last— and  Peter's  inter- 
pretation of  Jesus'  words,  addressed  dramatically  to  the  tree  (v.  14), 
as  a  '  curse,'  need  not  be  pressed— j'et  comparison  of  Luke  xvii.  3-6 
with  Mark  xi.  23,  25  (the  latter  of  which  verses  comes  in  oddly) 
suggests  the  key  (see  note  on  xi.  12). 

V 


322 


ST.  MARK  11.  23-25.     XMk 


23  answering  saith  unto  them,  Have  faith  in  God.  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  say  unto  this  mountain, 
Be  thou  taken  up  and  cast  into  the  sea ;  and  shall  not 
doubt  in  his  heart,  but  shall  believe  that  what  he  saith 

H  Cometh  to  pass ;  he  shall  have  it.  Therefore  I  say  unto 
YOU  All  things  whatsoever  ye  pray  and  ask  for,  believe 
that  ye  have  received  them,  and  ye  shall  have  them. 

25  [And  whensoever  ye  stand  praying,  forgive,  if  ye  have 

OQ    Have  faith  in  God :  a  direct  reply  to  the  wonder  expressed 

.n?i;^~e.  It  ^z^^'-z^i::'^^:^^^ 

resu'™SreTeen^tit^a^^ 

in   .hifve  n   of  thought  he  turned   to   another  visible  object,   to 

Enforce  hiriessoa  of  Faith  in  God  for  whatsoever  was  m  accord 

"'^a.^Wh^soever  shall  say  unto  t^^^  »--*f^- „\:;, f^re 
Olivet.  Matthew  has  a  like  saying  m  -.'^°*^'; -^ ^  j^^^J.^f^.^ure  at 
faith  needed  stimulating,  on  the  occasion  of  the  d's^l^s  ^^'^^^^^^ 
the  foot  of  Mount  Hermon  (xvii.  20) ;  and  Luke  h^s  PracUcaly  the 
same  one-including  reference  to  faith  as  a  mustard  seed-in  ye 
another  'fa  th'  context  (xvii.  5  f-)-  Mark's  is  the  -o^t  s^^^ab  e 
con  ext  ('  this  mountain  '),  the  special  instance  in  Jesus;  own  mind 
nerhaos  being  his  own  experience  of  the  apparently  insuperable 
ri^^lin"  in^heW  of  th'e  immediate  coming  of  Go^ 

viz.  national  unpreparedness.     It  was  a  f^^^^^"  f/'SJ^^^^^^Xna 

for    things    passing    ordinary    capacity.      Rabbis    of  exceptional 

nnuence  were  described  as  removers  ov  pluckcrs  up  of'"OU„iams 

but  shall  helieve  :  i.  e.  keep  believing  Jesus  ^peaks  o"t  of 
his  own  experience.  In  the  power  of  his  faith  in  his  Father  a„d 
that  alone,  he  was  now  going  forward  into  an  t>u/>nsse.  Jhe  same 
trustful  dependence  on  God  would  be  for  them  the  source  of  a  power 
whidi  woEld  make  them  capable  of  accomplishing  what  seemed  to 
them  impossible  of  fulfilment.  ^^^  ^^^,^ 

24.  Therefore  I  say  unto  you.      Hit-  laa  tiiai  _ 

power  is  a  reason  for  proceeding  to  speak  also  of  P^J^^er^  ^ut 
whether  Tesus  actually  did  so  on  this  occasion  may  be  doubted. 
The  'epctitfon  of  '  I  s^ay  unto  you'  in  two  consecutive  verses  is 
hardlv  natural  :   cf.  last  note  on  v.  25.  „ j   „„ 

heUeve  tl^at  ye  have  received  them:  that  is    as   good  as 
received  :cf     the    connexion    of   faith    with    assured    hope    in 


Ileb.  xi.  I. 


25  ""wiensoever  ye  stand  praying.   Kncliug  or  entire  pros/ra- 
/,bfwaTtSe  posture  in  which  prayer  was  offered  on  occasions  of 


ST.  MARK  11.  25.    X^«k  323 

aught  against  any  one ;  that  your  Father  also  which  is  in 
heaven  may  forgive  you  your  trespasses!.* 

*  Many  ancient  authoritieS'add  verse  26  :  But  if  ye  do  not  forgive, 
neither  will  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  forgive  your  trespasses. 


exceptional  solemnity  or  trouble,  e.  g.  the  dedication  of  the  temple 
(i  Kings  viii.  54),  Ezra's  confession  (Ezraix.  5),  Daniel's  petitions 
in  the  face  of  the  decree  (Dan.  vi.  10),  Christ's  agony  (Matt.  xxvi. 
39),  Stephen's  death  (Acts  vii.  50),  Paul's  prayers  at  Miletus  and 
at  Tyre  (Acts  xx.  36,  xxi.  5).  But  the  ordinary  posture  seems  to 
have  been  standing  (cf.  i  Kings  viii.  14,  22  ;  Neh.  ix.  4  ;  Jer.  xviii. 
20;   Ps.  cxxxiv.  I  ;  Matt.  vi.  5  ;  Luke  xviii.  11,  13). 

forgive  :  a  second  condition,  side  by  side  with  faith,  of  the 
efficacy  of  prayer  ;  and  it  is  God's  way  that  forgiveness  on  His 
part  is  linked  with  forgiveness  on  our  part.  Of  this  Jesus  liad 
already  spoken  when  he  unfolded  the  nature  of  pra^-er  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  vi.  14,  15). 

your  Father.  The  only  occurrence  in  Mark  of  this  highest 
name  of  God,  which  is  characteristic,  however,  of  the  basal  tradi- 
tion of  Jesus'  teaching  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke.  '  Your 
father  who  is  in  the  heavens  '  seems  an  echo  of  the  very  wording 
of  the  Lord's  prayer  in  its  Mattha;an  (.Syrian)  form,  and  may  point 
to  a  later  local  addition  (see  below). 

your  trespasses:  a  word  meaning  'lapses,'  and  so  misdeeds. 
To  judge  from  its  absence  at  this  point,  and  its  presence  else- 
where, in  Matt,  (see  vi.  14),  as  well  as  from  its  rather  loose  con- 
nexion with  what  precedes  in  Mark,  it  seems  as  if  the  above 
verse  does  not  properly  belong  here  any  more  than  its  negative 
form,  which  appears  as  verse  26  in  the  A.  V.,  but  is  omitted  by  the 
R.  V.  The  latter  wae  probably  suggested  later  on  by  Matt.  vi.  15  : 
cf.  above  on  '  j'our  Father. ' 

xi.  27-33.  The  Javish  authorities  challenge  the  authority  of  Jesus 
(cf  Matt.  xxi.  23-27  ;   Luke  xx.  18). 

'  On  the  Tuesday,  an  official  deputation  meets  Jesus  in  the 
Temple,  and  asks  by  what  right  he  has  taken  upon  himself  police 
duties  like  the  control  of  the  market.  Who  has  given  him  per- 
mission to  clear  the  court  of  the  Gentiles  and  even  to  teach  in  the 
Temple  ?  The  one  decisive  question  which  Jesus  puts  in  reply  is 
not  a  subtle  evasion  of  an  attempt  to  trap  Him  into  a  Messianic 
confession  [which  would  give  them  a  handle  against  Jesus  with 
the  Roman  Procurator].  The  nature  of  John's  authority  raised 
a  fundamental  issue  on  which  Jesus'  and  they  'were  at  variance  ' 
(Wood).  Hence  his  question  is  at  once  natural  and  crucial  as 
regards  his  own  authority. 


324  ST.  MARK  11.  27-32.     X^k 

27  And  they  come  again  to  Jerusalem:  and  as  he  was 
walking  in    the  temple,   there  come  to   him  the   chief 

28  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  the  elders ;  and  they  said 
unto  him,  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  or 

2n  who  gave  thee  lliis  authority  to  do  these  things  ?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  will  ask  of  you  one  *  question, 
and  answer  me,  and  I  will  tell  you  by  what  authority 

30  I  do  these  things.     The  baptism  of  John,  was  it  from 

31  heaven,  or  from  men  ?  answer  me.  And  they  reasoned 
with  themselves,  saying,  If  we  shall  say,  From  heaven  ; 

32  he  will  say.  Why  then  did  ye  not  believe  him?     '^But 

"  Gr.  word  ^  Or,  Bui  shall  we  say,  From  men  ? 


27.  walking'  iu  the  temple :  probably  in  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles,  perhaps  in  Solomon's  porch  (cf.  John  x.  23). 

the  chief  priests,  and  the  scribes,  and  the  elders.  All  the 
three  classes  now  confederate  approach  him  with  a  challenge. 
The  party  included  the  custodians  of  the  temple,  who  might 
reasonably  claim  to  know  by  what  right  Jesus  asserted  jurisdiction 
where  they  were  in  charge,  and  interfered  even  with  customs 
which  they  sanctioned. 

28.  By  what  authority.  .  .?  Their  first  question  was  as  to 
the  kind  of  authority  he  had. 

or  who  gave  thee  this  authority  to  do  these  things  ? 
Their  second  and  alternative  demand  was  that  he  should  toll  them 
the  source  of  his  authority. 

29.  I  will  ask  of  you  one  question.  Before  he  will  say  any- 
thing about  his  own  authority,  he,  too,  has  a  matter  to  settle  with 
them.      It  is  about  John's  authority  to  baptize  as  he  did. 

30.  was  it  from  heaven,  or  from  men  ?  The  question  placed 
them  on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma.  But  it  was  not  one  created  by 
any  dialectical  ingenuity  on  the  part  of  their  questioner  :  it  was 
inherent  in  Jesus'  whole  position  as  taking  up  and  continuing 
John's  message  of  Repentance,  a  change  of  heart  and  ways,  as 
needful  throughout  Judaism  as  condition  of  the  promised  blessings 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  coupled  with  the  approach  of  the  Messiah. 
Thus  the  question  went  right  to  the  root  of  things  as  between 
Jesus  and  his  opponents. 

31.  Why  then  did  ye  not  believe  him  ?  viz.  one  whom  they 
admitted,  in  spite  of  his  not  having  ordinary  human  credentials  of 
his  authority,  to  have  Divine  authority  for  his  mission,  a  mission 


ST.  MARK   11.33—12.1.     XMk  325 

should  we  say,  From  men — they  feared  the  people  :  -"^  for 
all  verily  held  John  to  be  a  prophet.    And  they  answered  ?,?, 
Jesus  and   say,  We   know  not.     And  Jesus   saith  unto 
them,  Neither  tell  I  you  by  what  authority  I  do  these 
things. 

And  he  began  to  speak  unto  them  in  parables.    A  man  12 

"  Or,  for  all  held  John  to  be  a  prophet  indeed. 


largely  like  Jesus'  own.  That  is,  the  nature  and  source  of  Jesus' 
authority  were  like  John's,  derived  immediately  from  heaven,  i.  e. 
prophetic  in  character. 

33.  We  know  not.  They  took  refuge  in  an  evasive  profession 
of  ignorance,  and  could  not  fu:  tlier  press  their  own  question.  But 
Jesus  did  not  leave  the  issue  there  :  he  went  on  to  press  his  case 
against  them  in  parables. 

xii.  1-12.  The  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen  (cf.  Matt. 
xxi.  33-46;  Luke  xx.  9-19). 

1.  he  began  to  speak  tinto  them  in  parahles.  The  parable  of 
the  Two  Sons,  recorded  only  by  Matthew  (xxi.  28-32),  follows  up 
the  line  of  thought  in  Jesus'  question  touching  the  attitude  to  John 
of  the  Jewish  leaders,  as  contrasted  with  the  publicans  and  harlots 
whom  they  despised  as  having  no  •  knowledge  '  of  the  Law  or  true 
religion.  Then  comes  this  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen, 
directed  to  the  ofllcial  classes  in  particular,  and  hinting  at  the 
authority  of  God  as  lying  behind  their  authority  over  His  people, 
one  held  only  in  trust  and  on  terms. 

'  The  story  describes  the  history  of  Israel,  and  implies  that  Jesus 
felt  Himself  to  be  God's  last  appeal  to  His  people,  and  also  thought 
their  rejection  of  Him  would  issue  in  His  becoming  the  foundation 
of  a  new  communitj'  which  should  inherit  God's  Kingdom' 
(Wood).  Compare  the  end  of  Isa.  liii  for  this  last  idea.  Thus  this 
parable,  one  of  the  very  few  in  Mark,  is  highly  significant  of 
Jesus'  thought  touching  himself  and  his  mission— its  rejection  by 
Israel,  its  issue  in  his  death,  and  the  place  of  that  in  the  Divine 
economy  of  the  Kingdom.  All  this  has  been  most  adequately 
realized  by  Prof.  Burkitt  [Transactions  of  the  Third  International 
Congress  for  the  Htstoty  cf  Religion,  ii,  pp.  321-328).  He  argues 
that  it  shews  that  '  Jesus  not  only  foresaw  his  death,  but  regarded 
tt  as  the  divinely  appointed  means  for  Itastcning  on  the  Day  of 
Judgement,  and  thus  for  bringing  in  the  Kingdom.^  He  connects 
the  thought  in  this  parable  with  the  conversation  appended  to  the 
Transfiguration.  '  Just  as  the  herald  had  to  suffer  and  die,  so  too 
does  Jesus  discern  that  he,  the  Messiah,  must  sufler  and  die  like- 


326  ST.  MARK  12.  i.     XM^ 

planted  a  vineyard,  and  set  a  hedge  about  it,  and  digged 

wise     In  John's  fate  he  reads  his  own  '-or  at  least  it  is  an  analogy 
which  helps  Jesus  to  see  the  principles  involved  in  the  rejection 
he  now  read  in  the  attitude  of  Israel  ^cf.  the  parable  of  the  Sower) 
and  particularly  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  m  Galilee    and 
the  Sadducaic  temple  hierarchy  in  Jerusalem      This  Pnnaple  of 
a  iudRement  or  discnmination  within  Israel  itself,  between  the  true 
or  spiritual  Israel  and  the  outward  or  carnal  (present  in  Isaiah  s 
doctrine  of  '  the  holy  Remnant '  and  Jeremiah  s  idea  of  the  reno 
vated  form  of  the  Covenant^  is  shewn  in  the  parable  and  runs 
through  Israel's  whole  history,  from  Moses  and  Ehjah  (ct.  ix.  4 
and   note)    onwards-all  great  servants  of   God  causing     judge- 
ment '  among  the  People.     Of  this  John  the  Baptist  was  but  the 
last  example,  John  the  forerunner  of  himself  as  Messiah  vhence 
the  perfect  fitness  of  the  parable  as  a  sequel  to  the  testing  question 
about  John  in  xi.  29-33)-      Nor  was   Messiah  himself,  the  culmi- 
nating member  of  the  series  of  God's  messengers  to  Israel,  God  s 
very  'son'  in  unique  spiritual  affinity  with  Him  as  Fa  her,  to  be 
an  exception  to  this   rule-contrary  as   this  was  to  all  previous 
expectation  on  the  matter,  including  that  with  which  Jesus  himself 
had  seemingly  started  his  own  ministry       This  was  the  great  dis- 
covery, the  mystery  of  the  Cross  for  Messiah  and  his  followers 
fere  the  Kingdom  was  consummated),  even  as  rejection  had  been 
the  lot  of  God's  prophets  and  saints  all  along  (Matt   xxiii.  29-39, 
Luke  xi.  47-52).    This  parable,  then,  casts  welcome  light  upon  the 
way  Jesus  reached  the  conviction,  with  the  aid  of  OT.  history 
read  through  his  own  spiritual  experience.     Accordingly,  in  spite 
of  what  Montefiore— whose  summary  (i,  p.  392)  has  been  used  in 
the  words  between  inverted  commas  above-has  said  by  way  ot 
criticism  of  Prof.  Burkitt's  use  of  the  parable,  it  appears  that  the 
line  of  thought  imphed  in  it  is  integral  to  Jesus'  whole  outlook  m 
the  latter  part  of  his  ministry,  and  is  the  key  in  large  measure  to 
his  profound  faith  and  doctrine  as  to  the  saving  significance  ol  his 
coming  sufferings  and  death.     Compare  x.  45,  ^iv.  24,  and  notes 

^  '"^  a  vineyard.  The  foundation  of  the  parable  is  the  O.  T.  figure 
of  Israel  as  the  Lord's  vineyard,  of  which  we  have  instances  both 
in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets  e.g.  Ps.  Ixxx  ;  Isa.  v.  2,  &c., 
Jer.  ii.  21).  The  passage  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Isaiah  is  most  in 
view  here,  its  details  appearing  in  what  comes  next. 

set  a  hedge  aUout  it.  Thus  was  the  valuable  possession  pro- 
tected against  wild  beasts  Ps.  Ixxx.  13  ;  Num.  xxii.  24 ;  Song  ol 
Songs  ii.  15;   Neh.iv.  31  and  robbers. 

digged  a  pit  for  the  winepress.  The  grapes  were  placed 
in  a  vat,  in  which  they  were  trodden  by  the  fcet-a  joyous  opera- 
tion accompanied  with  song  (Judges  ix.  27  ;   Isa.  Ixiii.  a  :  Jer.  xxv. 


ST.  MARK  12.  2-8.     XMk  327 

a  pit  for  the  winepress,  and  built  a  tower,  and  let  it  out 
to  husbandmen,  and  went  into  another  country.    And  at  3 
the  season  he  sent  to  the  husbandmen  a  "■  servant,  that 
he  might  receive  from  the  husbandmen  of  the  fruits  of 
the  vineyard.     And  they  took  him,  and  beat  him,  and  3 
sent  him  away  empty.     And  again  he  sent  unto  them  4 
another  **  servant ;  and  him  they  wounded  in  the  head, 
and  handled  shamefully.    And  he  sent  another  ;  and  him  5 
they  killed  :  and  many  others  ;  beating  some,  and  killing 
some.     He  had  yet  one,  a  beloved  son  :    he  sent  him  6 
last  unto  them,   saying.   They  will   reverence  my  son. 
But  those  husbandmen  said  among  themselves.  This  is  7 
the  heir ;  come,  let  us  kill  him,  and  the  inheritance  shall 
be  ours.     And  they  took  him,  and  killed  him,  and  cast  8 

"■  Gr.  bond-servajit 

30).  This  was  the  'press,'  in  most  cases  a  trough  dug  in  the  solid 
rock  or  in  the  earth,  in  which  latter  case  it  was  lined  with  masonry. 
At  a  lo\ver  level  was  the  '  pit,'  a  smaller  cavity,  also  often  exca- 
vated out  of  the  rock,  into  which  the  juice  of  the  grapes  ran. 

bTiilt  a  tower.  For  purposes  of  observation  and  defence 
and  for  storage.  So  everything  was  done  that  care  could  do  ;  and 
the  owner,  who  let  the  vineyard  to  tenants,  here  called  '  the 
husbandmen,'  was  entitled  to  look  at  the  end  of  the  season  for  his 
rent.  The  rent  was  paid  in  the  form  of  a  certain  portion  of  the 
fruits.    The  cultivators  held  their  position  on  trust  from  the  owner. 

2.  he  sent  to  the  hxisbandinen  a  servant.  Here  Jesus  doubt- 
less had  in  view  the  treatment  of  the  messengers  of  God  by  those 
in  power  in  the  evil  times  of  Jewish  history,  including  the  stoning 
of  Zechariah  by  the  order  of  Joash  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  21),  and  the 
like.    See  Matt,  xxiii.  30  ff.  ;  cf.  Acts  vii.  52. 

6.  He  had  yet  one,  a  beloved  son.  For  'beloved  '  as  equiva- 
lent to  'only,'  when  used  of  a  son,  see  note  on  i.  11  (and  the 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  xx.  339  f. ).  This  adds  force  to  the 
thought  here  in  view.  Not  a  servant  only — though  he  came  in 
that  capacity  ('He  had  yet  one'),  as  the  supreme  fulfilment  of  the 
idea  of  'the  Servant  (slave)  of  Jehovah'  in  Isa.  liii — but  one  of 
more  account  by  far  than  many  slaves,  his  one  and  only  son. 

1.  This  is  the  heir.  Jesus  as  Messiah  is  the  '  heir,'  in  the 
unique  sense  in  which  also  he  is  the  'son.' 

8.  The  fact  that  the  parable  ends  thus,  with  nothing  to  corre- 


328  ST.  MARK  12.  9-11.     X^k 

9  him  forth  out  of  the  vineyard.     What  therefore  will  the 
lord  of  the  vineyard  do  ?  he  will  come  and  destroy  the 
husbandmen,  and  will  give  the  vineyard  unto  others, 
lo  Have  ye  not  read  even  this  scripture; 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 
The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner: 
It  This  was  from  the  Lord, 

And  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes? 


spond  with  the  Resurrection — so  central  a  point  in  the  Apostolic 
Gospel  — suggests  that  it  is  Jesus'  own  and  not  a  creation  of  the 
Apostolic  Church  (Burkitt,  Trans,  of  Third  Congress  of  Religions, 
ii.  32:  f.):  cf.  the  allusion  to  Jesus  in  v.  6,  as  a  'bond-servant.' 

9.  What  therefore  will  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  do?  This 
is  the  question  to  which  the  parable  is  meant  to  lead  up.  Here  it 
is  put  and  answered  by  Jesus  himself.  Luke  adds  that  the  people 
reply  '  God  forbid,'  as  if  conscious  of  what  Jesus  meant.  In 
Matthew  those  addressed  are  made  to  give  the  reply  which  con- 
demns them  in  heightened  terms  out  of  their  own  mouth. 

10.  Have  ye  not  read  even  this  scripture  ?  '  Even  this 
scripture '  ;  for  the  passage  was  a  familiar  and  oft-quoted  one.  It 
is  taken  from  Ps.  cxviii,  which  under  the  figure  of  a  stone  cast 
aside  by  builders,  but  afterwards  made  the  key-stone  of  the  fabric, 
speaks  of  Israel  as  set  aside  and  despised  by  the  world-powers, 
but  finally  restored  to  the  place  of  honour  designed  for  it  by  God 
among  the  nations.  This  Psalm  appears  to  have  received  at  this 
time  a  Messianic  interpretation  among  the  Jews  (cf.  xi.  9  f.V  Here 
it  is  applied  by  Jesus  to  himself,  the  true  representative  of  Israel, 
rejected  indeed  by  the  ruling  classes  of  a  perverted  Judaism,  but 
the  elect  of  God,  appointed  to  be  the  head  of  a  new  Israel,  the 
point  of  unity  of  the  people  of  God,  both  Jewish  and  Gentile.  By 
'  the  head  of  the  corner'  is  meant  not  the  coping-stone,  but  one 
of  the  stones  set  in  the  corners  of  a  building,  so  as  to  bind  the 
walls  together— the  chief  of  these,  the  one  laid  with  public  cere- 
mony. Peter  makes  use  more  than  once  of  the  words  thus  doubly 
consecrated  by  the  Lord's  application  of  them  (Acts  iv.  11  ; 
I  Peter  ii.  4-7).  Paul  also  introduces  the  idea  into  his  argument 
(Eph.  ii.  20),  attaching  it  in  Rom.  ix.  32  also  to  Isa.  xxviii. 
16.  The  meaning  of  the  parable  could  not  be  mistaken.  In  its 
clear  terms  the  leaders  of  the  people  were  shown  themselves, 
their  privilege,  their  misuse  of  their  trust,  and  their  doom.  Jesus 
came  seeking  in  God's  name  for  true  righteousness  or  at  least  re- 
pentance ;  and  he  was  met  with  rejection  and  death. 


ST.  MARK   12.  12,  13.     XMk  329 

And  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him;  and  they  feared  la 
the  multitude ;    for  they  perceived  that   he  spake  the 
parable  against  them  :  and  they  left  him,  and  went  away. 

And  they  send  unto  him  certain  of  the  Pharisees  and  13 
of  the  Herodians,  that  they  might  catch  him   in  talk. 

12.  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him.  A  second  time  they 
would  fain  have  laid  hands  on  him  here  and  now,  but  dared  not  in 
face  of  the  sympathy  of  the  masses. 

xii.  13-17.  A  trap  set  by  tlie  Pharisees  and  Herodians  (cf.  Matt. 
xxii.  15-22;  Luke  xx.  20-26).  'The  Pharisees  and  the  Hero- 
dians perhaps  represent  the  two  horns  of  the  dilemma  by  which 
they  try  to  catch  Jesus.  The  Pharisees  leant  to  the  popular  view 
which  chafed  at  tribute,  and  which  found  its  extreme  expression 
in  the  Zealots  (cf.  Josephus,  Antiquities,  xviii.  i.  6\  The  Hero- 
dians probably  desired  the  siattts  quo  which  ensured  Herod's 
throne.  If  Jesus  sa3-s  it  is  lawful  to  pay  tribute,  the  Pharisees 
will  denounce  Him  to  the  people  :  if  He  says  it  is  not  lawful,  the 
Herodians  will  denounce  Him  to  the  [Roman]  authorities '  (Wood). 
Thus,  either  way,  escape  seemed  impossible  :  and  yet  Jesus  did 
escape  their  toils.  No  wonder  that  '  they  marvelled  greatly  at 
him.' 

13.  they  send  unto  him.  This  refers  to  the  coalition  of  chief 
priests  and  scribes  already  mentioned.  Matthew  represents  the 
Pharisaic  party  as  the  senders,  and  the  persons  sent  as  certain  of 
their  own  '  disciples  ',  as  if  to  awaken  less  suspicion  as  to  the 
double  motive  behind  the  question.  In  any  case  his  enemies 
change  their  tactics.  Instead  of  confronting  Jesus  in  a  body,  they 
now  send  separate  groups  of  emissaries,  all  with  the  purpose  of 
getting  Jesus  to  compromise  himself  by  something  he  might  be 
tempted  to  say  in  reply  to  some  apparently  innocent  question, 
such  as  the  two  which  follow. 

and  of  the  Herodians.  The  Pharisees  take  the  lead,  but 
associate  with  themselves  some  of  the  Herodians,  members  of  the 
Herodian  party  of  which  mention  has  already  been  made  (iii.  6) 
as  in  similar  collusion  in  Galilee.  Again,  before  Jesus  had  left 
the  borders  of  Herod's  dominions,  as  we  learn  from  Luke  xiii. 
31  fT.,  the  Pharisees  had  tried  to  intimidate  him  by  warning  him  of 
Herod's  enmity  to  him.  Yet  these  two  parties  were  sharply 
divided  in  their  sympathies  with  regard  to  the  matter  at  issue,  the 
one  being  intensely  opposed  to  the  foreign  rule  of  the  Roman, 
the  other  accepting  and  profiting  by  it.  In  his  reply,  therefore, 
Jesus  could  not  avoid,  as  they  thought,  giving  offence  to  one  or 
other. 

catch  him  :  or  '  ensnare  '  him — a  hunter's  term. 


330  ST.  MARK  12.  14-16.     X^k 

14  And  when  they  were  come,  they  say  unto  him,  ^  Master, 
we  know  that  thou  art  true,  and  carest  not  for  any  one : 
for  thou  regardest  not  the  person  of  men,  but  of  a  truth 
teachest  the  way  of  God  :  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto 

.cCssar,  or  not?  Shall  we  give,  or  shall  we  not  gwe? 
But  he,  knowing  their  hypocrisy,  said  unto  them,  Why 
tempt  ye  me?  bring  me  a  ^ penny,  that  I  may  see  it. 

i6  And  they  brought  it.     And  he  saith  unto  them,  Whose 

a  Or,  Teacher  ^  See  marginal  note  on  Matt,  xviii.  28. 


14    we  know  that  tHoti  art  true,  and  carest  not  for  any  one. 

A  subtly  contrived  address,  using  his  truthfulness  and  fearless- 
ness a  inducements  to  make  him  answer.  Surely  he  was  not  the 
man  to  shirk  answering  awkward  and  dangerous  questions,  without 

reeard  to  fear  or  favour  !  „     -ru     <  ^^•u„t^  ' 

^  IS  it  lawfxxl  to  ^ve  tribute  unto  Cassar  ?  The  tr.bute 
is  the  poll-tax  (as  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  custom,  on 
merchandise),  levied  on  individuals  and  paid  yearly  into  the 
Serial  treasury.  It  was  an  offence  to  the  patriotic  Jew,  as  _.t 
was  the  token  of  subjection  to  foreign  rule  ;  even  the  coin  m 
which  it  was  paid  bore  the  emperor's  effigy.  This  was  not  the 
case  with  the  copper  native  coins  current  among  the  Jews,  as 
distinguished  from  the  imperial  coinage.  In  deference  to  Jewish 
feeling  the  former  were  stamped  with  national  or  at  least  neutral 

''"'l5^"'shall  we  give,  or  shall  wa  not  give  ?  The  former  ques- 
tion touched  only  the  legitimacy  of  paying  the  tax,  in  oyalty  to 
the  Jewish  law.  This  one  put  the  matter  as  a  practical  Po>nt  c,f 
policy-payment  or  refusal.  The  rising  of  Judas  of  Gahlee,  tl  e 
Gaulonite  as  he  is  called  by  Josephus  {Ant.q.  xviu.  i.  i),  which  is 
referred  to  in  Acts  (v.  37^  had  its  occasion  in  the  odium  a  tachmg 
o  SL  taL.  Tohim  anfo^her  Zealots,  to  pay  tribute  to  a  heathen 
ruler  was  to  be  unfaithful  to  Jehovah,  whom  alone  they  owned  as 

■"'"^bring  me  a  penny  :  rather  a  shilling.  The  tribute  had  to  be 
paid  inth!  imperial  silver  coinage.  Matthew  and  Luke  say  'shew 
me.'  But  Mark's  'bring  me'  expresses  the  exact  PO^'t  on.  J' 
was  Jewish  coins  that  were  required  for  the  temple,  and  the  men 
Tw  about  Jesus.  Pharisees  and  others,  might  not  have  a  rf^«am<s 
"nTheir  purses.  The  coin  had  to  be  procured,  possibly  from  the 
money  changers  ;  and  the  bystanders  would  wait  for  it,  wondering 
all  the  more  what  was  to  happen. 


ST.  MARK  12.  17.     XMk  331 

is  this  image  and  superscription  ?     And  they  said  unto 
him,  Caesar's.     And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Render  unto  17 
Cffisar  the  things  that  are  Cesar's,  and  unto  God  the 
things   that   are   God's.      And   they    marvelled   greatly 
at  him. 


16.  imag-e:  the  figure  of  the  head  of  the  Emperor,  at  this  time 
Tiberius,  encircled  by  laurel. 

superscription :  the  legend  giving  the  imperial  style  or 
official  title. 

they  said  unto  liim,  Csesar's.  Thus  were  they  made  to 
answer  their  own  question.  The  Jewish  Rabbis  taught  that 
'  wheresoever  the  money  of  any  king  is  current,  there  the  inhabi- 
tants acknowledge  that  king  for  their  lord '  (see  Ezra  Abbot's 
Comineittary  on  Matthew  and  Mark,  p.  242). 

17.  Bender.  The  word  is  the  one  used  for  the  giving  back  of 
the  book  to  the  attendant  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth,  and  of 
the  healed  boy  to  his  father  (^Luke  iv.  20,  ix.  42).  It  means  the 
giving  back  of  something  that  is  due.  Acceptance  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Caesar,  as  indicated  by  acceptance  of  his  coinage  and 
enjoyment  of  the  benefits  secured  under  his  rule,  meant  acceptance 
also  of  responsibilities,  and  among  these  the  payment  of  what  was 
Caesar's  due,  what  was  required  for  the  support  of  his  adminis- 
tration. 

unto  Csesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  unto  God 
the  thing's  that  are  God's.  There  are  duties  to  civil  government 
and  duties  to  God.  They  are  to  be  faithfully  discharged  each  in 
its  own  proper  sphere.  And  in  the  present  case  they  did  not 
really  clash.  But  there  is  also  a  distinction  between  them,  and 
the  one  class  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  other.  Jesus,  how- 
ever, is  concerned  much  less  to  emphasize  the  lawfulness  of 
tribute  and  of  political  power  than  the  opposite  side  of  the  matter, 
the  insignificance  of  those  things  compared  with  the  things  of 
God,  who  will  take  care  of  His  own  Kingdom's  coming.  '  Nothing 
was  further  from  his  thoughts  than  to  establish  a  principle  in 
accordance  with  which  the  boundaries  of  the  domains  of  God  and 
those  of  Caesar  might  be  rigidly  defined  '  (Loisy) — as  has  often 
been  attempted  in  latter  times  with  appeal  to  this  saying,  which 
has  no  thought  of  any  future  like  that  of  a  '  Christian  Empire.' 
The  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand  in  another  sense  than  this.  The 
duty  of  refusing  obedience,  when  the  requirements  ot  civil  autho- 
rity really  conflict  with  the  supreme  law  of  duty  to  God,  is 
recognized  both  in  the  O.  T.  i^Dan.  iii.  18,  vi.  lo")  and  in  the  N.  T. 
(Acts  iv.  19,  v.  29^. 

marvelled  e'reatly.     A  strong  word,  found  in  the  N.  T.  onlj' 


332  ST.  MARK  12.  1 8.     X^k 

i8      And  there  come  unto  him  Sadducees,  which  say  that 
there   is   no  resurrection ;  and  they  asked  him,  saying, 

here,  and  meaning  that  they  were  utterly  amazed — '  not  being 
able  to  lay  hold  of  the  saying  before  the  people  ' — and  so  '  were 
reduced  to  silence'  (Luke).  They  '  left  him,  and  went  their  waj',' 
says  Matthew.  The  deadly  accusation  of  perverting  the  nation 
and  'forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,'  for  which  the  repl}' 
looked  for  by  these  Pharisees  would  have  given  ground,  was 
afterwards  made  against  him  in  spite  of  their  defeat  on  this  occa- 
sion (Lukexxiii.  2). 

xii.  18-27.  The  Test  Question  put  by  the  Saddiicecs{ci,ll[a.\.\..yiyi\\. 
23-33  ;  ^-uke  XX.  27-38). 

18.  there  come  unto  him  Sadducees.  The  emissaries  of  the 
Pharisees  being  discomfited,  certain  members  of  the  opposite 
party  take  their  place.  This  is  the  first  and  only  direct  introduc- 
tion of  the  party  of  the  Sadducees  in  Mark's  Gospel.  The 
Sadducees  indeed  are  seldom  mejitioned  by  name  in  the  N.  T. 
They  were  closely  identified  with  the  priestly  aristocracy  ;  and 
in  this  connexion  they  come  thrice  upon  the  scene  (Acts  iv.  i, 
V.  17,  xxii.  6,  7,  8).  As  to  the  Gospels,  it  is  mainly  in  Matthew 
that  they  appear,  and  not  often  even  there  (iii.  i,  7,  v.  17,  xvi.  6, 
II,  12,  xxii.  23,  34).  Josephus  speaksof  them  as  a  small  minority 
of  the  Jews,  consisting  onl}'  of  the  rich  and  those  of  highest 
station  {A>itiq.y.\\\.  x.  6,  xviii.  i.  4\ 

The  word  is  now  generally  understood  to  be  derived  from  the 
proper  name  Zadok.  The  Zadok  in  view  was  probabl3'  the  faithful 
priest  of  David's  time,  high  priest  under  Solomon  (2  Sam.  xv.  24, 
&c. ;  I  Kings  i.  32,  &c.).  The  '  sons  of  Zadok'  had  a  conspicuous 
place  among  the  priestly  families  after  the  return  from  exile. 
They  represented  the  old  priestly  party,  who  came  in  lime  to 
seek  to  assimilate  Jewish  life  largely  to  Greek  waj'S.  Thcj^  are 
first  heard  of  as  a  distinct  party  in  the  reign  of  John  H3'rcanus 
(135-105  B.  c).  They  enjoyed  most  power  during  the  times  pre- 
ceding Pompey's  capture  of  Jerusalem.  After  the  destruction  of 
the  Temple  in  a.  d.  70  they  are  no  more  heard  of,  the  party  being 
made  up  mostly  of  chief  priests  and  Iheir  families.  Hence  when 
the  '  chief  priests'  are  mentioned,  the  Sadducaic  party  may  be 
understood  to  be  in  view.  They  counted  for  little  with  the 
people  religiously,  and  they  do  not  seem  to  have  taken  an}'  notice 
of  Jesus  till  late  in  liis  ministry.  When  he  accepted  the  title 
*  son  of  David  ' — which  seemed  to  point  to  intended  revolt  against 
the  existing  order  in  State  and  Church — and  interfered  with  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  temple,  the  Sadducees  joined  with  others  in  the 
opposition  which  aimed  at  his  life. 

which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection.    So  says  Josephus 


ST.  MARK   12.  19-21.     XMk  333 

^  Master,  Moses  wrote  unto  us,  If  a  man's  brother  die,  19 
and  leave  a  wife  behind  him,  and  leave  no  child,  that  his 
brother  should  take  his  wife,  and  raise  up  seed  unto  his 
brother.     There  were  seven  brethren  :  and  the  first  took  20 
a  wife,  and  dying  left  no  seed;  and  the  second  took  her,  21 
and  died,  leaving  no  seed  behind  him ;   and  the  third 

*  Or,  Teacher 


{^Antiq.  xviii.  i.  3,  &c.).  In  Acts  it  is  added  that  they  held  also 
that  there  is  '  neither  angel  nor  spirit '  (xxiii.  8).  From  Josephus 
we  learn  further  that  they  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and 
future  rewards  and  punishments  ;  that  they  thought  of  the  soul 
as  perishing  with  the  body  ;  and  that  they  disavow^ed  the  doctrines 
of  *  Fate,'  or  absolute  foreordination,  and  Providence  {^Aiitiq.  xviii. 
i.  3,  &c.  ;  Jewish  War,  ii.  viii.  14).  Probably  Josephus  overstates 
the  negative  nature  of  their  views.  They  were  rigid  upholders  of 
the  view  of  life  set  forth  iu  the  earliest  form  (as  they  judged  it)  of 
the  Mosaic  Law,  viz.  the  Pentateuch,  as  compared  not  only  with 
the  oral  Torah  of  the  Pharisees  but  even  with  the  Prophetic 
developments  in  doctrine.  Thus  they  denied  the  natural  immor- 
tality of  the  soul  (such  as  the  Greeks  taught)  ;  and  as  regards  the 
possibility  that  Jehovah  could  raise  His  own  People  to  renewed 
life  (as  the  Prophets  taught),  they  simply  held  to  an  agnostic 
position  (as  did  also  the  Samaritans  for  a  similar  reason),  saying 
that  the  resurrection  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Law  (i.  e.  the 
Pentateuch) — as  the  Talmud  reports  their  view  {Sanhedrin,  ii.  i). 
This  gives  special  point  to  Jesus'  argument  here. 

19.  SXoses  wrote  unto  us,  If  a  man's  brother  die.  The 
reference  is  to  the  Levirate  law  as  given  in  the  Deuteronomic 
code  (Deut.  xxv.  5,  6\  which  was  a  provision  to  prevent  the 
extinction  of  a  man's  part  and  lot  from  Israel,  nt  a  time  when  no 
personal  future  life  was  thought  of.  This  law  of  Levirate 
mari'iage  was  to  the  effect  that,  if  a  man  died  without  a  son  to 
succeed  him,  his  brother  should  marry  the  widow,  and  that  the 
first-born  son  of  this  second  union  should  rank  as  child  of  the 
deceased  husband  (cf.  Gen.  xxxviii.  8;.  The  law  is  quoted  freel}', 
so  that  the  terms  vary  somewhat  in  the  several  records. 

20.  There  were  seven  brethren.  They  put  an  i[naginary 
case,  and  an  extreme  one,  which  might  seem  to  reduce  the  doctrine 
of  a  bodily  resurrection  to  absurdity.  Not  unlikely  it  was  a 
familiar  puzzle  with  which  the  sceptical  Sadducee  was  accustomed 
to  vex  the  orthodox  Pharisee  ;  and  to  the  ordinary  Pharisee  at  this 
time,  with  his  crude,  material  ideas  of  the  future  life,  it  would  be 
a  great  difficulty. 


334  ST.  MARK  12.  22-26.     X^k 

22  likewise :  and  the  seven  left  no  seed.     Last  of  all  the 

23  woman  also  died.     In  the  resurrection  whose  wife  shall 

24  she  be  of  them  ?  for  the  seven  had  her  to  wife.  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Is  it  not  for  this  cause  that  ye  err,  that 

25  ye  know  not  the  scriptures,  nor  the  power  of  God  ?  For 
when  they  shall  rise  from  the  dead,  they  neither  marry, 
nor  are  given  in  marriage ;  but  are  as  angels  in  heaven. 

26  But  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  are  raised  ;  have  ye 
not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  in  tJie  place  concerning  \hQ 

24.  Is  it  not  for  this  cause  tliat  ye  err  ?  The  questioners 
themselves  are  at  fault.  The  difficulty  which  they  propounded 
has  no  foundation.  He  gives  two  reasons  also  for  their  mistake 
— their  misunderstanding  of  the  very  Scriptures  to  which  they 
appealed,  and  their  ignorance  of  the  power  of  God  as  not  limited 
to  present  conditions.  In  the  following  verses  he  explains  these 
reasons  further,  taking  the  latter  first. 

25.  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  niarriag'e.  The 
Sadducees  thought  of  life  only  as  it  was  known  to  them  under  its 
earthly  conditions.  They  made  no  allowance  for  a  life  that  could 
be  lived  under  higher  conditions  and  with  different  relations. 
But  God's  power  was  not  to  be  limited,  as  they  imagined,  to  one 
order  of  existence.  He  could  provide  a  life  in  which  there  was 
no  death,  and  therefore  neither  birth  nor  marriage.  In  Luke  the 
statement  is  given  in  these  express  terms  :  'They  that  are  accounted 
worthy  to  attain  to  that  world  (' '  age  "  or  order  of  being' ,  and  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in 
marriage  :  for  neither  can  they  die  any  more '  (xx.  35,  36). 

are  as  angels.  Not  'are  angels,'  but  'are  as  angels.'  The 
difference  between  human  existence  and  angelic  remains  ;  but  in 
the  resurrection-life  men  will  be  like  angels,  as  the  possessors  of 
an  undying  life,  independent  of  the  marriage  relation. 

26.  have  ye  not  read  in  the  hook  of  Moses  ?  Jesus  now 
passes  to  the  other  reason  for  their  mistake,  their  misunderstand- 
ing of  Scripture.  They  had  appealed  to  Moses,  their  one  final 
authority.  He  now  confutes  them  by  Moses  himself.  The  '  book 
of  Moses  '  is  the  Pentateuch,  which  gets  that  name  in  the  O.  T. 
(2  Chron.  xxxv.  12  ,  but  in  the  N.  T.  is  usually  known  as  '  Moses' 
(Luke  xvi.  29)  or  '  the  law  of  Moses  '  (Lui<e  xxi\-.  44  ;  Acts  xxviii. 
23;  of.  John  i.  45  . 

in  the  place  concctiiing  the  Eiish  :  //'/.  'at  the  Bush,'  that  is, 
in  the  paragraph  of  the  Law  which  gives  the  story  of  the  Burning 
Bush  (Exod.  iii.  i,  &c.).  So  in  Rom.  xi.  2  we  have  '  in  Elijah  ' 
(R.  V.  marg."),  for  '  in  the  section  relating  to  Elijah.' 


ST.  MARK  12.  27.     XMk  335 

Bush,  how  God  spake  unto  him,  saying,  I  am  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob  ? 
He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  Uving  :  ye  do  27 
greatly  err. 

I  am  tlie  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the 
God  of  Jacob:  cf.  Exod.  iii.  6.  The  repetition  of  the  term  points 
to  the  distinct  and  individual  relation  in  which  God  stands  to 
each. 

27.  He  is  not  the  God  of  (the)  dead,  but  of  (the)  living.    God 
spoke  of  Himself  as  still  the  God  of  the  patriarchs,  still  in  relation 
to  them  though  they  were  departed.     But  the  living  God  can  be 
in  actual,  living  relation  only  to  the  living.     Hence  these  departed 
fathers  must  be  in  existence.     The  point  of  the  statement— which 
is  thoroughly  Jewish  in  its  verbal  form,  but  is  really  based  on  the 
idea  of  God's  nature  as  revealed  in   His  relations  with  those  He 
admits  to  fellowship— turns  on  two  things.     Of  these  the  first  is 
the  O.  T.  conception  of  the  Divine  fellowship.     The   condition  of 
life,  of  all  life  worthy  the  name,  is  the  fellowship  of  God  ;  and 
that  fellowship  ensures  the  life  with  Him  and  like  His  (cf.  e.  g. 
Ps.  xvi.  8-1 1,  xlix.  13-15,  Ixxiii.  23-26  ;   Isa.  xxvi.  19  ;  Dan.  xii.  2). 
The    second  is  the  O.  T.   conception  of  man  as  a  unity,  in  the 
integrity  of  his  corporeal  and  incorporeal  nature.    It  does  not  dis- 
tinguish sharply,  as  modern  thought  does,  between  soul  and  bod3', 
and  speak  merely  of  the  immortalitj'  of  the  former.     It  is  the  whole 
man  himself  that  somehow  passes  at  death  unto  Sheol,  the  unseen 
world,  and  continues  to  exist  there.     It  was  on  these  foundations 
that  the  O.  T.  revelation  of  life,  immortality,  and  resurrection  rose^ 
and  grew  from  stage  to  stage  in  definiteness  and  clearness.     So  the 
argument  from  the  words,  '  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,'  which  might  seem  to  us  not 
to  carry  beyond  the  idea  of  an  immortality  of  soul,  meant  to  the 
Hebrew  mind  the  continued  existence  of  the  man  himself  in  the 
integrity  of  his  present  complex  being,  and  so  contained  the  idea 
of  a  resurrection.     Jesus'  argument  in  Mark  (and  Matt.,  though 
Luke  adds '  for  all  live  to  Him ')  strictly  applies  only  to  the  righteous, 
those  who  '  live  unto  God  '  in  this  life.     Of  these  he  says,  '  God  is 
not  God  in  relation  to  dead  men,  but  living'  ;  which  suggests  that 
those  in  question  were  not  in  suspended  '  life'  but  actual  (some- 
how, somewhere),  and  so  ready  for  the  further  exhibition  of  God's 
power  in  restoring  them  to  fresh  bodily  life  on  a  renewed  earth. 
Luke  adds  'for  all  live  to  him,'  extending  the  scope  of  the  state- 
ment.    To  us  men  seem  to  die  ;  to  God  they  live.      '  Death  is  a 
change  of  relation  to  the  world  and  to  men  ;  it  does  not  change 
our  relation  to  God'  (Swefe). 

ye  do  greatly  err.     Peculiar  to  Mark.     Their  lack  of  insight 


336 


ST.  MARK  12.  27.     XMk 


into  Scripture  led  them  far  astray.  Matthew  notices  the  effect 
upon  the  people  and  upon  the  questioners.  The  multitudes  '  were 
astonished'  ;  the  Sadducees  were  'put  to  silence'  (xxii.  33,  34)  ; 
and  even  '  certain  of  the  scribes  '  (of  the  Pharisaic  school,  cf.  ii. 
16),  according  to  Luke,  said  approvingly,  '  Teacher,  thou  hast  well 
said.' 

xii.  28-34.  T^^^^  Question  of  the  Great  Commandment  (cf.  Matt, 
xxii.  34-40  :  see  also  Luke  x.  25-27). 

Abrahams,  in  Studies  in  Pharisaism  and  the  Gospels,  chap,  ii, 
has  an  instructive  discussion  of  this  episode,  as  bearing  on  the 
attitude  of  the  Pharisaic  Judaism  of  the  period  towards  a  simplifi- 
cation of  the  Law  by  recognilion  of  a  certain  gradation  within  its 
precepts— as  between  'great,'  in  the  sense  of  fundamental,  and 
'small,'  in  the  sense  of  derivative,  or  'heavy'  and  'light.'  He 
cites  in  particular  Hillel's  famous  reply  to  a  would-be  proselyte, 
who  asked  to  be  taught  the  Law  while  he  stood  on  one  foot  (i.  e. 
in  the  briefest  form  possible)  :  '  That  which  thou  liatest  (to  be  done 
to  thyself)  do  not  to  thy  fellow  ;  this  is  the  whole  Law  ;  the  rest 
is  commentari' ;  go  and  learn  it.'  He  says  further  that  '  Such 
attempts  to  find  a  basic  principle  for  the  whole  of  the  Law  can  be 
traced  clearly  from  Hillel  (before  Christ),  through  Aqiba  (d.  a. d. 
135;,  to  the  days  of  R.  Simlai '  (third  century).  Simla!  'quotes 
the  prophets  as  the  authors  of  attempts  in  this  direction,  and  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  while  Hillel  contents  himself  with  con- 
cluding "this  is  the  whole  Law,"  Jesus  i^Matt.  xxii.  40)  adds  the 
words  "  and  the  prophets  ".'  That  is,  the  prophets  are  to  Jesus  of 
equal  authority  with  the  Pentateuch,  the  code  form  of  the  Torah, 
as  interpreters  of  the  essential  mind  of  God  expressed  in  the  Law. 
But  inasmuch  as  a  distinction  between  the  importance  of  different 
elements  in  the  Divine  Law  tended  to  make  men  think  the  '  light' 
commands  less  binding  than  the  'weighty'  or  grave  ones,  and  so 
to  leave  the  former  undone  (contrast  Jesus'  words  in  Matt,  xxiii. 
23,  in  keeping  with  Hillel's  attitude  to  '  the  rest '  as  yet  binding), 
'  in  Jewish  Theology  an  objection  was  raised  to  such  summaries, 
just  because  they  would  tend  to  throw  stress  on  part  of  the  Torah 
to  the  relative  detriment  of  the  rest  .  .  .  The  Hebrew  piophets, 
however,  did  discriminate  between  the  moral  importance  of  various 
sides  of  the  religious  and  social  life,  and  there  may  have  been 
those  who  in  Jesus'  day  desired  such  a  discrimination,  and 
welcomed  its  reiteration  by  Jesus'  — as  does  'liberal  Judaism' 
to-day.  Accordingly  '  the  questioner  of  Jesus  desired  an  opinion 
as  to  whether  Jesus  did  or  did  not  share  this  fear  of  reducing  the 
Law  to  fundamental  rules.  ...  In  the  Palestinian  Talmud  (Bera- 
choth  i.  8  [5]),  R.  Levi,  a  pupil  of  Aqiba,  cites  the  Shema  (^Deut. 
vi.  4  5^^.)  as  fundamental  because  the  Decalogue  is  included 
within  it.  .  .  .  It  is  noticeable  that  in  Mark  (xii.  29)  the  answer  of 
Jesus  begins  with  the  Shema,  thougli  in  Matthew  the  verse  is 


ST.  MARK  12.  28,  29.     X'^  337 

And  one  of  the  scribes  came,  and  heard  them  ques-  28 
tioning   together,  and   knowing  that  he   had  answered 
them  well,  asked  him,  What  commandment  is  the  first 
of  all?     Jesus  answered.  The  first  is.  Hear,  O  Israel;  29 


wrongly  omitted.  It  does  not  seem  that  in  any  extant  Rabbinic 
text,  outside  the  Testamnits  of  the  Tivelve  Patriarchs  [Dan  v.  3, 
Issachar  v.  2,  vii.  6,  dating  from  some  century  or  so  B.C.],  the 
Shema  and  the  love  of  one's  neighbour  are  associated.' 

28.  one  of  the  scribes  came.  This  scribe,  a  '  lawyer '  as 
Matthew  calls  him  (cf.  Luke  x.  25),  had  been  present  when  the 
question  of  the  resurrection  was  under  discussion,  and  had  been 
impressed  by  the  reply  of  Jesus.  He  belonged  to  the  party  of  the 
Pharisees  (Matt.  xxii.  34,  35 j,  and  when  the  opposite  sect  with- 
draws silenced,  he  comes  forward  with  a  question  of  a  different 
kind.  Matthew  speaks  of  him  as  'tempting'  Jesus  (xxii.  35); 
probably  wrongly,  for  Mark  attributes  to  him  another  and  more 
favourable  reason  for  his  question  ('  Knowing  that  he  had  answered 
them  well').  Luke  introduces  an  account  of  the  question  of 
a  'lawyer,'  regarding  the  way  to  inherit  eternal  life,  at  an  earlier 
stage,  after  his  report  of  the  mission  of  the  Seventy  and  before  the 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (x.  25,  29). 

What  commandnxent  is  the  first  of  all  ?  Here  '  what ' 
=  '  what  sort  of,'  and  '  first '  =  '  chief.'  The  question  refers  to  the 
quality  of  the  commandment  rather  than  to  its  place  among  the 
Ten.  What  by  its  very  nature  is  the  chief  commandment,  entitled 
to  rank  first  ?  The  question  was  one  often  debated  in  the 
Rabbinic  schools.  But  which  form  of  the  question  is  more  exact, 
as  most  in  keeping  with  Jewish  thought,  this  or  that  in  Matt., 
'What  commandment  is  great  in  the  Law?'  The  Rabbis,  as 
Abrahams  says  (as  above,  p.  24),  did  not  discriminate  '  between  the 
importance  or  unimportance  of  laws,  so  much  as  between  their 
fundamental  or  derivative  character.  This  is  probably  what  Jesus 
was  asked  to  do  or  what  he  did.'  As  between  the  forms  just 
cited,  the  same  writer  favours  Matthew's,  observing  '  it  is  more 
natural  in  Hebrew  to  find  the  positive  (great)  thus  used  as  super- 
lative.' It  would  be  quite  natural  that  Matthew  should  preserve 
the  more  Jewish  (and  so  original)  phrase. 

29.  The  first  is,  Hear,  O  Israel.  Jesus  points  the  scribe  to 
the  words  of  the  Deuteronomic  version  of  the  decalogue  (Deut.  vi. 
4,  5\  and  to  that  part  of  it  which  not  only  had  the  foremost  place 
in  that  code,  but  was  repeated  in  their  creed  (the  Slienta)  every 
day  by  all  Jews,  and  was  carried  about  by  the  strictest  of  them  in 
their  phylacteries — the  two  small  leather  boxes  worn,  the  one  on 
the  forehead,  and  the  other  on  the  left  arm  (Matt,  xxiii.  i,  &c.). 

Z 


338  ST.  MARK  12.  3o,  31.     XMk 

30  "■  The  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is  one :  and  thou  shalt 
love  tlie  Lord  thy  God  ''with  all  thy  heart,  and  ''with  all 
thy   soul,  and  ^with  all   thy   mind,  and  ''with   all   thy 

31  strength.    The  second  is  this,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 

*   Or,  The  Lord  is  our  God ;  the  Lord  is  one  ^  Gt.  from 

The  laord  our  God,  the  Iiord  is  one.  The  rendering  of  the 
A.  V.  is  'the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord,'  as  the  R.  V.  in  Deut. 
vi.  4.  There  the  marg.  has  not  onl}^  what  appears  in  the  text  here, 
but  also,  like  the  R.V.  marg.  here,  'The  Lord  (the  Gk.  equivalent 
iorjahweh,  the  proper  name  of  Israel's  God)  is  our  God  ;  the  Lord 
is  one'  or  'the  Lord  alone' — the  last  rendering  giving  the  em- 
phasis of  the  thought,  as  we  see  from  the  Scribe's  reply  in  verse  32, 
thou  Shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart :  or 
'  from  out  of.'  In  Matt,  it  is  '  in  '  all  the  faculties  specified  :  while 
Luke,  in  x.  27,  has  'out  of  all  thy  heart,'  along  with  'in'  soul, 
strength,  and  mind,  apparently  in  apposition  to  'heart'  taken  in- 
clusively. In  Mark  the  presence  of  '  mind '  along  with  and 
parallel  with  '  heart,'  is  perhaps  due  to  these  being  alternative  LXX 
renderings  of  the  Heb.  word  for  'heart,'  which  has  in  Heb.  an 
intellectual  rather  than  emotional  sense,  the  latter  being  expressed 
by  '  soul.'  In  any  case  the  idea  is  that  God  can  and  should  be 
loved  with  a  love  which  possesses  and  expresses  man's  whole 
conscious  and  moral  being.  To  the  unity  of  the  one  and  only 
true  God,  as  distinct  from  the  '  Lords  many  '  and  '  Gods  man}' '  of 
heathenism,  corresponds  the  whole-hearted  devotion  of  man  in  all 
his  powers— will,  emotions,  thought — '  united  '  to  '  fear  His  name  ' 
(Ps.  Ixxxvi.  11  f.).  The  Scribe's  substitution  of  'understanding' 
for  '  soul '  in  v.  33  may  reflect  the  doctrinaire  rather  than  devo- 
tional cast  of  currt;nt  Pharisaic  piety. 

31.  The  second  is  this,  Thoii  shalt  love  thy  neighhoiir  as 
thyself.  The  words  are  from  Leviticus  (xix.  18)  ;  cf.  Rom.  xiii. 
9;  Gal.  v.  14;  Jas.  ii.  8.  In  Leviticus  the  word  'neighbour'  is 
used  with  reference  to  fellow  Jews.  In  the  N.  T.  it  has  the  widest 
possible  extension  of  meaning;  for  Jesus  lifted  it  at  once  and  for 
ever  out  of  its  more  limited  application  by  his  parable  of  the  Good 
Samaritan  (Luke  x.  29-37).  This  precept,  therefore,  expresses 
the  principle  of  the  second  table  of  the  moral  law,  as  the  former 
does  tliat  of  the  fust  table.  The  mention  of  a  second  foremost 
commandment  is  made  unsolicited,  and  this  precept  is  said  by 
Jesus  expressly  to  be  'like  unto'  the  first  (Matt.  xxii.  39),  of  the 
same  character,  with  the  same  claims,  and  equally  essential.  The 
sum  and  substance  of  all  duty  arc  in  these  two  requirements  ;  and 
the  second  is  the  practical  test  of  the  first.  Montcfiore  {op.  cit.,  i. 
287  f.)  observes  that  Jesus'  'bringing  together  of  these  two  com- 


ST.  MARK  12.  33-34.     XMk  33^ 

hour  as  thyself.     There  is  none  other  commandment 
greater  than  these.     And  the  scribe  said  unto  him,  Of  33 
a  truth,  ^  Master,  thou  hast  well  said  that  he  is  one ; 
and  there  is  none  other  but  he  :  and  to  love  him  with  33 
all    the    heart,    and   with    all    the   understanding,   and 
with   all    the    strength,  and    to    love    his    neighbour   as 
himself,  is   much  more  than  all  whole  burnt  offerings 
and  sacrifices.     And  when  Jesus  saw  that  he  answered  34 
discreetly,  he  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  not  far  from  the 

^  Or,  Teacher 

mandments  is  highly  striking  and  suggestive.'  Though  their 
combination  had  already  been  made  in  a  remarkable  apocryphal 
writing,  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  some  century 
earlier,  it  had  not  become  a  recognized  thought  in  Judaism  ;  and 
as  it  was  there  limited  by  its  context  to  the  Jewish  '  neighbour,'  it 
was  left  to  Jesus  to  make  the  combination  afresh,  in  a  full  and  final 
sense  which  has  meant  for  humanity  more  than  can  be  said. 

Tliere  is  none  other  commandiuent  greater  than  these. 
In  Matthew  the  comment  on  the  twofold  law  of  love  is  in  more 
Jewish  form:  'On  these  two  commandments  hangeth  the  whole 
Law,  and  the  Prophets'  (cf.  v.  17-20). 

33.  mnch  more  than  all  whole  burnt  offering's  and  sacrifices. 
This  '  recalls  Hosea  vi.  6,  and  the  many  similar  prophetic  passages' 
l^Montefiore)  ;  and  we  read  that  certain  Rabbis  said  '  in  the  name 
of  R.  Menachem  of  Galilee,  One  day  all  ofTerings  will  cease,  only 
the  ThankofTering  will  not  cease  :  all  prayers  will  cease,  only  the 
Thanksgiving  pra3'er  will  not  cease '  [ci.  Heb.  xiii.  15,  where  it  is 
cited  by  Westcott).  The  scribes  were  more  alive  to  the  temporary 
or  relative  nature  of  sacrifices  than  to  that  of  ritual  laws  for 
personal  life,  e.g.  as  to  cleanness  and  uncleanness  (cf.  vii.  iff.)  ; 
and  this  Scribe  may  have  been  glad  of  an  opportunity  of  bringing 
out  the  point,  over  against  the  Sadducaic  priesthood. 

34.  answered  discreetly.'  Jesus  saw  that  the  Scribe  recog- 
nized moral  duties  to  be  far  more  than  ritual  obligations,  like 
material  sacrifices  in  any  of  their  forms.  '  Burnt-ofTerings'  is  the 
more  specific  term.  '  Sacrifices  '  is  the  more  general  term,  cover- 
ing all  kinds  of  sacrificial  victims  or  offerings. 

Thon  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  Scribe 
had  at  least  this  qualification  for  the  kingdom,  that  he  understood 
its  requirements  to  be  moral  requirements,  the  fundamental  duties 

'  Perhaps  better  '  sensibly  '.  The  former  possibly  suggests  more 
conscious  '  policy  '  in  his  words  than  is  here  meant. 


340  ST.  MARK    12.  35,  36.     X^k 

kingdom  of  God.  And  no  man  after  that  durst  ask  him 
any  question. 

35  And  Jesus  answered  and  said,  as  he  taught  in  the 
temple,  How  say  the  scribes  that  the  Christ  is  the  son 

36  of  David?    David  himself  said  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 

of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man,  rather  than  ritual  observances. 
Having  this  insight  into  spiritual  things,  and  this  sympathy  with 
them,  he  wanted  but  little  more  to  make  him  a  disciple.  Jesus 
seems  here,  as  usual,  to  make  the  best  of  this  inquirer.  Yet  he 
perhaps  saw  that  the  man  did  not  fully  realize  that  this  might 
carry  him,  if  consistent,  away  even  from  Pharisaism,  as  distinct 
from  the  common  view  of  temple-devotion ;  and  that  some  word 
calculated  to  probe  his  complacency  with  the  religion  of  Pharisaism, 
his  own  type  of  piety,  was  needful  to  his  real  awakening  to  the 
Kingdom.  Compare  the  case  of  the  rich  inquirer  in  x.  17  ff.  In 
both  cases  the  other  Synoptists  seem  to  have  felt  Mark's  picture 
of  Jesus'  attitude  to  the  questioner  too  favourable.  'The  kingdom 
of  God  '  in  this  context,  as  in  the  parables  comparing  its  growth 
as  a  whole  to  that  of  seed  (iv.  26-32),  seems  to  be  thought  of  as 
already  present  in  germ  among  men  (cf.  Luke  xvii.  20  f.;,  and  not 
only  as  a  future  reality.  For  proximity  to  it  is  here  not  a  matter 
of  time  or  space,  but  of  spiritual  affinity. 

durst  ask  liim  any  ciuestion.  The  policy  of  entangling  or 
testing  questions  had  failed.  In  each  case  the  questioners  had 
either  been  refuted  out  of  their  own  mouths,  or  the  difficulty  had 
been  solved  by  being  taken  down  to  underlying  principle.  None 
had  the  courage  to  proceed  further  in  this  way. 

xii.  35-40.     77?^  counter-question  of  Jesus  (cf.  Matt.  xxii.  41-45  ; 
Luke  XX.  41-44). 

35.  answered  and  said :  i.  e.  put  forward  his  counter-challenge 
to  his  critics'  whole  altitude,  probably  on  another  occasion. 

as  lie  tatight  iu  the  temple.  The  original  suggests  that 
what  follows  is  the  gist  and  crucial  point  of  a  course  of  teaching 
on  the  topic  in  question. 

How  say  the  scribes?  In  Matthew  the  question  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  Pharisees  :  in  Mark  to  his  hearers  generally. 

that  the  Christ  (i.  e.  the  Messiah)  is  the  son  of  David. 
That  the  Messiah  was  to  come  of  David's  line  was  inferred  from 
important  passages  in  the  Prophets  (Isa.  xi.  i  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5)  and 
the  Psalms  (Ixxxix.  3,  4,  cxxxii.  11).  It  was  the  general  belief  of 
the  time  (cf.  Matt.  xxi.  2,  15  ;  Mark  xi.  10).  Jesus  criticizes  the 
current  Jewish  t^'pe  of  Messianic  ideal  at  one  of  its  distinctive 
points. 

36.  David   bimsslf  said   in   the    Holy    Spirit:    that   is,  by 


ST.  MARK  12.  37.     XMk  341 

The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 

Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand, 

Till  I  make  thine  enemies  *  the  footstool  of  thy  feet. 
David  himself  calleth  him  Lord ;  and  whence  is  he  his  37 
son  ?    And  ^  the  common  people  heard  him  gladly. 

*  underneath  thy  feet  in  the  best  texts. 
^  Or,  the  great  multitude 

inspiration,  or  in  the  character  of  a  prophet.  The  Psalm  in  question, 
Ps.  ex,  was  interpreted  as  a  Messianic  Psalm  ;  and  in  that 
character  it  is  quoted  in  the  N.  T.  more  frequently  than  any  other 
Messianic  passage  (Acts  ii.  34,  35  ;  r  Cor.  xv.  25  ;  Heb.  i.  13,  v. 
6,  vii.  17,  21)  :  see  xiv.  62.  It  is  quoted  here  with  a  slight  modi- 
fication of  the  Greek  version  of  the  O.  T.  and  the  form  in  which  it 
is  cited  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  viz. '  underneath,'  not  'as  footstool 
of.'  Jesus  here,  as  usual,  speaks  in  terms  of  the  current  view  of 
the  authorship  of  the  book  cited  (cf.  x.  5,  and  note  on  i.  25).  The 
different  view  of  its  authorship  reached  to-day,  by  a  scholarship 
superior  to  that  available  in  Jesus'  day,  does  not  touch  the  prin- 
ciple of  his  argument  as  addressed  to  those  who  held  the  Davidic 
authorship  in  any  case.  For  they  held  Messiah  to  be  David's 
'Lord'  in  spiritual  rank;  and  this  made  their  stress  on  Davidic 
descent  an  error. 

37.  David  himself  calleth  him  Iiord.  The  Psalm  speaks  of 
a  prince  who  is  also  a  priest,  and  of  him  as  one  who  is  exalted  to 
Jehovah's  side.  This  prince  is  described  by  the  writer  of  the 
psalm  as  *  my  Lord.'  This,  on  the  then  accepted  theory,  was  said 
by  'David  himself  prophetically  of  the  Messiah,  whom  yet  the 
scribes  speak  and  think  of  as  '  the  son  of  David.'  So  there  arises 
the  difficulty  which  is  expressed  in  the  next  sentence. 

whence  is  he  his  son?  How  comes  it,  then,  that  he  is  his 
son  1  How  can  this  Messiah,  who  is  the  subject  of  David's 
prophecy,  be  at  once  David's  Lord  and  David's  son  ?  To  this 
question  neither  scribes  nor  people  could  reply,  because  their 
ideas  of  tlie  Messiah  were  limited  and  insufficient.  The  conjunction 
of  Lordship  and  sonship  — especially  to  Oriental  thought  on  the 
relations  of  'son  '  and  'father' — meant,  what  they  did  not  recog- 
nize, that  the  Messiah  was  more  than  a  royal  descendant  of  David 
the  king,  a  personality  apt  to  be  conceived  on  nationalist  lines  ; 
that  he  had  a  higher  relation  still,  a  peculiar  relation  to  God  which 
made  him  Lord  even  of  David  spiritually— a  fact  which  had  a 
bearing  upon  the  nature  of  the  Kingdom  he  was  to  bring  in,  and 
so  on  the  methods  proper  to  its  realization. 

Montefiore  and  others  have  a  further  difficulty  about  the  whole 
question,  as  though  Jesus  discla  mcd  being  'a  son  of  David'  in 


342  ST.  MARK  12.  38.     X^k 

38      And  in  his  teaching  he  said,  Beware  of  the  scribes, 

any  sense.  But  what  he  disclaims,  and  refutes  by  shewing  the 
iyiipcisse  to  -which  it  led  (on  their  own  premisses),  was  the  Pharisees' 
notion  of  Messiahship  as  determined  by  sonship  to  David  'accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,'  rather  than  by  the  Divine  sonship,  or  unique 
spiritual  relation  to  God — which  was  to  Jesus  the  basis  of  his  own 
Messianic  vocation.  This  was  a  conviction  growing  out  of  the 
experience  which  came  to  him  at  his  Baptism  ;  and  upon  it  the 
claim  underlying  his  whole  ministry  rested,  at  first  tacitly  and 
implicitly,  and  at  the  end  openly  and  explicitly.  Here  we  have 
the  most  explicit  form,  thus  far,  of  his  claim  in  words  (as  distinct 
from  action,  in  the  Triumphal  entry  and  his  acquiescence  in  his 
disciples'  acclamation),  made  before  Israel  at  large  in  the  spiritual 
centre  of  Judaism,  the  Temple  Court ;  and  it  was  one  which  he 
did  but  reaffirm,  in  more  mystic  and  figurative  language,  in  his 
solemn  and  final  confession  before  the  High  Priest,  at  the  fateful 
hearing  on  the  night  after  his  arrest  (xiv.  53f^".).  Such  belittling 
of  the  notion  of  mere  Davidic  sonship,  as  compared  with  Divine 
Sonship  made  manifest  in  a  filial  consciousness  towards  God  as 
his  Father  and  a  character  perfectly'  expressive  of  the  same — a 
Messianic  Sonship  such  as  his  critics  and  foes  had  no  eyes  to  per- 
ceive, nor  even  tlie  idea  of  it  to  apply  as  a  test  of  his  claims — is 
the  same  in  principle  as  Paul's  belittling  of  knowledge  of  '  Christ 
after  the  flesh'  (2  Cor.  v.  16)  and  emphasis  on  Christ  after  the 
Spirit.  Yet  by  this  Paul  did  not  imply  that  God's  'Son,  Jesus 
Christ  Our  Lord,'  was  not  '  made  of  the  seed  of  David  accoriiing 
to  the  flesh  '  ;  only  that  the  decisive  proof  of  what  He  really  was 
lay  in  another  sphere,  that  of  the  'Spirit  of  holiness  '  (Rom.  i.  4). 
The  thought  in  Jesus'  mind  has  its  roots  in  the  same  sense  of 
spiritual  relationships,  as  alone  religiously  real  and  significant,  that 
comes  out  more  simply  in  the  great  saj'ing  touching  his  kindred 
according  to  the  flesh  (iii.  33-35'  :  'Who  is  thy  mother,  and  m}' 
brethren  ?  .  .  .  Whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God.' 

And  the  common  people:  rather,  the  'great  multitude'  of 
the  common  people. 

heard  him  g'ladly.  As  the  R.  V.  (and  A.V.)  divide  the 
paragraph,  the  words  seem  to  mean  that  they  heard  gladly  what 
he  said  of  Messiah's  Lordship  as  well  as  his  Davidic  sonship.  But 
in  view  of  the  tense  used,  'was  listening  to  him  gladly'  probably 
refers  to  his  teaching  generally  (cf.  35),  and  leads  up  rather  to 
what  now  follows  (see  W.  H.  and  Swete)  :  so  in  Luke  xx.  45. 

xii.  38-40.  Warning  against  the  ways  of  the  Scribes  (cf.  Matt, 
xxiii.  1-39;   Luke  xx.  45-47.  cf.  xi.  43). 

38.  And  in  his  teaching^  he  said.  It  was  directed  botli  to  his 
disciples  and  to  the  people  (Matt,  xxiii.  1),  to  the  disciples  in  the 
first  instance,  but  also  in  the  hearing  of  the  people  (Luke  xx.  45). 


ST.  MARK  12.  39.  40.     XMk  343 

which  desire  to  walk  in  long  robes,  and  io  have  saluta- 
tions in  the  marketplaces,  and  chief  seats  in  the  syna-  39 
gogues,  and  chief  places  at  feasts  :  they  which  devour  40 
widows'  houses,  ^  and  for  a  pretence  make  long  prayers  ; 
these  shall  receive  greater  condenmation. 

'^  Or,  even  while  for  a  pretence  they  make 


It  took  the  form  now  of  denunciation  of  the  professional  theo- 
logians and  warning  against  their  ways.  Of  this  teaching  Mark 
and  Luke  give  but  a  few  representative  fragments.  In  Matthew 
we  have  it  recorded  at  greater  length,  but  probably  in  a  form 
artificially  expanded  by  some  matter  coming  from  other  contexts. 

■which,  desire  to  walk  in  long-  robes.  Stately,  flowing  robes 
were  a  sign  of  ostentation. 

salutations  in  the  marketplaces.  Such  as  '  Hail,  Rabbi,' 
'  Master,'  '  Father,'  and  the  like  (cf.  Matt,  xxiii.  7-10),  addressed 
to  them  in  the  most  public  way. 

39.  chief  seats  in  the  synag-og-ues.  Probably  tlie  benches  or 
stalls  reserved  for  the  elders,  in  front  of  the  ark  containing  the 
sacred  rolls,  and  facing  the  people. 

chief  places  at  feasts  :  the  places  reserved  at  table  for  the 
most  eminent  guests.  What  these  were  is  not  quite  certain. 
Probably  custom  was  not  constant.  But  in  the  Rabbinical  books 
the  seat  of  honour  is  said  to  have  been  the  centre  place,  when 
three  persons  rechned  together.  Three  couches,  it  is  said,  used 
to  be  arranged  along  three  sides  of  a  table  (the  fourth  side  being 
left  open  for  the  purpose  of  service)  ;  and  of  these  the  middle  one 
was  the  place  of  the  chief  guest.  These  scribes  aspired,  therefore, 
to  be  treated  as  the  personages  of  the  greatest  importance  on 
social  occasions,  as  well  as  on  religious. 

40.  they  which  devour  widows'  houses.  Widows  were 
under  the  protection  of  the  Law  (Exod.  xxii.  22)  ;  and  the  scribes, 
as  the  custodians  and  interpreters  of  the  Law,  were  specially 
bound  to  care  for  them.  The  guilt  of  scribes  in  enriching  them- 
selves, no  doubt  under  legal  forms,  at  the  cost  of  the  solitary  and 
defenceless  ones  who  trusted  them,  was  all  the  greater.  Of  course 
Jesus  does  not  speak  thus  of  all  scribes,  but  of  the  class  generally 
at  this  time. 

and  for  a  pretence  make  long  prayers.  They  hid  their  real 
character  under  a  profession  of  extraordinary  piety ;  and  under 
colour  of  being  men  more  given  to  prayer  than  others,  practised 
greedy  and  overreaching  arts. 

Ostentation,  ambition,  pride,  avarice— these  were  the  sins  that 
involved   judgement   on  the  scribes,  and  the  heavier  judgement 


344  ST.  MARK  12.  41,  42.     XMk 

41  And  he  sat  down  over  against  the  treasury,  and  beheld 
how  the  multitude  cast  ^  money  into  the  treasury  :  and 

42  many  that  were  rich  cast  in  much.     And  there  came 

*  Gr.  brass 

because  all  was  done  under  the  cloak  of  hypocrisj'.  The  man  who 
lives  for  avarice  and  ambition  has  his  condemnation.  The  man 
who  does  this  under  the  cover  of  a  loud  religious  profession  has 
yet  greater  condemnation. 

xii.  41-44.  T/ic  Widoiv''s  Offering  (cf.  Luke  xxi.  1-4).  An 
incident  aptly  placed  here,  partly  as  following  on  the  allusion  lo 
'widows'  houses'  in  verse  40,  partly  as  in  spiritual  contrast  to 
the  proud  ostentatious  piety  just  described. 

41.  he  sat  down.  Jesus  had  left  the  Court  of  the  Gentiles  in 
which  he  had  been  teaching  and  answering  questions,  and 
passed  into  the  Court  of  the  Women.  Here  he  seated  himself,  on 
the  steps  or  within  the  gate  (where  alone  it  seems  to  have  been 
allowable ;  see  Edersheim"s  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
ii.  387),  and  watched  the  people  who  brought  tlieir  gifts.  Mark's 
narrative  is  characteristically  graphic  all  through. 

over  ag'ainst  the  treasury.  In  the  Apocrypha  mention  is 
made  of  the  sacred  treasury,  a  depository  for  the  safe  keeping  not 
only  of  treasure,  but  of  public  records,  and  also  of  the  property  of 
widows  and  orphans  (i  Mace.  xiv.  49;  2  Mace.  iii.  6,  &c.  ;  iv.  42, 
v.  18).  Josephus  also  speaks  of  'treasuries'  in  the  court  of  the 
women  in  Herod's  temple  {Javish  War,  v.  v.  2,  vi.  v,  2),  and  of 
'  the  treasury  '  (^Antiq.  xix.  vi  i).  Here  the  name  '  treasury '  (cf, 
John  viii.  20)  appears  to  be  given  lo  that  part  of  the  court  of  the 
women  (a  court  large  enough,  it  is  said,  to  accommodate  more 
than  15,000  people)  in  which  provision  was  made  for  receiving 
the  contributions  of  the  worshippers.  Under  the  colonnades  were 
placed  thirteen  boxes,  called  '  trumpets '  because  of  their  trumpet- 
shaped  mouths,  into  which  offerings  in  money  were  dropped.  Of 
these,  according  to  Lightfoot  {Home  Hebr.  et  Talui.,  p.  536,  &c.), 
*  nine  chests  were  for  the  appointed  temple-tribute,  and  for  the 
sacrifice  tribute,  that  is,  money-gifts  instead  of  the  sacrifices  ;  four 
chests  for  free-will  offerings,  for  wood,  incense,  temple-decoration, 
and  burnt-offerings.' 

beheld  how  the  multitude  cast  money.     The  money  would 
be  mostly  the  copper  coins  which  '  the  masses'  handled. 

42.  And  there  came  a  poor  widow.  '  One  poor  widow,'  as 
the  margin  of  the  R.  V.  puts  it ;  a  single,  solitary,  poverty-stricken 
figure — a  touch  leading  up  to  what  follows,  viz.  Jesus'  valuation  of 
her  single  gift  as  outweighing  in  God's  sight  all  the  big  gifts  of 
the  '  many  rich.' 


ST.  MARK  12.  43—13.  i.     XMk  345 

^a,  poor  widow,  and  she  cast  in  two  mites,  which  make 
a  farthing.  And  he  called  unto  him  his  disciples,  and  43 
said  unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  This  poor  widow 
cast  in  more  than  all  they  which  are  casting  into  the 
treasury  :  for  they  all  did  cast  in  of  their  superfluity  ;  but  44 
she  of  her  want  did  cast  in  all  that  she  had,  even  all  her 
living. 

And  as  he  went  forth  out  of  the  temple,  one  of  his  13 

^  Gr.  one 

two  mites,  which  make  a  farthirg.  The  'mite'  was  a 
small  copper  coin,  the  smallest  Jewish  coin  indeed,  in  value 
making  half  a  Roman  quadrans,  or  the  eightieth  part  of  the  denarius 
or  shilling,  which  made  the  day's  wage  of  a  labourer.  It  would 
take  about  ten  of  these  mites  to  make  one  of  our  pennies.  The 
widow  had  but  two  of  these  trifling  coins,  and  she  parted  with 
both.  There  was  a  Rabbinical  rule  forbidding  an  offering  so 
meagre  as  a  single  mite  for  the  alms-chest. 

The  explanation  in  terms  of  Roman  coinage  implies  indeed  that 
this  comment  was  added  for  Romanized  readers,  but  not  neces- 
sarily at  Rome.  For  quadrans  is  used  a  in  Talmudic  text  of  the 
second  century  as  equalling  two  pcrittas  (Jepta,  the  Gr.  for  '  mites'). 

43.  called  ,  .  .  his  disciples.  He  would  have  them  together, 
so  that  they  might  hear  the  lesson  suggested  by  this  incident, 
prefacing  it  with  the  solemn  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you.' 

44.  of  their  snijerfluity  .  .  .  she  of  her  want.  Their  gift  was 
limited  to  what  tliey  could  easily  spare  :  her  gift  consisted  of  all 
that  she  had,  '  even  all  her  living,'  all  that  she  had  for  her  support 
at  the  time.  The  giver,  not  the  gift ;  the  spiritual,  not  the  material 
fact ;  the  degree  of  the  self-sacrifice,  not  the  amount  of  the  contri- 
bution ;  that  is  the  Divine  standard  of  appraisement. 

xiii.  1-2.  Prophecy  ofihe  Destruction  of  the  Temple  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv. 
1-2  ;  Luke  xxi.  5-6).  From  the  first  verse  onwards  there  are 
signs  that  each  of  the  Synoptics  had  a  special  tradition  of  its  own 
to  hand. 

1.  as  he  went  forth  out  of  the  temple.  The  work  of  another 
day  being  finished,  he  was  again  leaving  the  temple  courts,  and, 
as  we  may  infer,  turning  towards  Bethany-.  This  was  his  last 
public  appearance  and  appeal  in  Jerusalem — and  in  its  religious 
centre,  the  Temple — a  fact  which  is  brought  out  strongly  in 
Matthew  by  the  insertion  of  the  moving  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem, 
as  the  hearth  of  Judaism  ixxiii.  37-39\  which  Luke  places  a  good 
deal  earlier,  in  a  less  fitting  context  (xiii.  34  f.). 


346  ST.  MARK  13.  2,  3.     XMk  p 

disciples  saith  unto  him,  *  Master,  behold,  what  manner 

2  of  stones  and  what  manner  of  buildings !  And  Jesus 
said  unto  him,  Seest  thou  these  great  buildings?  there 
shall  not  be  left  here  one  stone  upon  another,  which  shall 
not  be  thrown  down. 

3  [^J  "^^^^  ^^  ^^  ^^^^  o'^  the  mount  of  Olives  over  against 

*  Or,  Teacher 


behold,  what  manner  of  stones  and  what  manner  of 
buildings!  A  remark  shewing  how  their  minds  were  lull  of 
thoughts  of  national  glories  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  The 
Herodian  temple  was  of  extraordinary  magnificence  and  archi- 
tectural grandeur.  The  blocks  of  which  it  was  built  were  of  a 
magnitude  that  staggers  the  modern  Western  mind.  Josephus 
speaks  of  the  stones  of  part  of  it  as  being  '  each  in  length  twenty- 
five  cubits,  in  height  eight,  in  breadth  about  twelve  '  {Antiq.  xv. 
xi.  3),  and  of  some  of  them  as  being  'forty-five  cubits  in  length, 
five  in  height,  and  six  in  breadth  '  {Jeivish  War,  v.  v.  6).  It  was 
not  strange  that  the  disciples  (so  Luke  and  Matt,  in  different 
forms,  Mark  'one'  of  them),  as  they  looked  upon  its  glories, 
called  the  Master's  attention  to  its  mass  and  splendour,  the 
stupendous  blocks  of  wiiich  it  was  built,  the  grandeur  of  its 
various  parts,  as  well  as  the  votive  offerings  (the  'gifts'  of  Lulce 
xxi.  5),  such  as  the  golden  vine  presented  by  Herod  the  Great, 
with  which  it  was  enriched. 

2.  Seest  thou  these  great  buiiding-s?  How  different  the 
light  in  which  Jesus  himself  saw  these  outward  symbols  of 
religion  1 

there  shall  not  be  left  here  one  stone  upon  another.  He 
took  up  the  announcement  of  ancient  prophecy,  which  declared 
that  Zion  was  to  be  'plowed  as  a  field,'  and  Jerusalem  to  '  become 
heaps,  and  the  mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high  places  of  a 
forest'  (Mic.  iii.  12) — because  the  inward  reality  was  largely 
lacking  ;  and  in  forty  years  after  he  spoke  his  word  was  fulfilled. 
When  Titus  captured  Jerusalem  he  left  the  work  of  demolition  to 
be  completed  by  the  tenth  legion  ;  and  it  was  done  so  thoroughly 
that  '  no  one  visitine:  the  city,'  says  Josephus,  'would  believe  it 
had  ever  been  inhabited  '  (Jewis/i  IVar,  vii.  i.  i). 

xiii.  3-13.  Disciples'  Questions  as  to  the  future,  and  the  answer  of 
Jesus  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  3-14,  x.  17  ff.  ;   Luke  xxi.  8-19,  xii.  11  f.). 

3.  as  he  sat  on  the  mount  of  Olives.  This  mention  of  an 
occasion  distinct  from  that  just  described  (not  so  in  Luke,  nor 
perhaps  in  Matt.'s  X).  and  the  absence  of  all  but  the  inner  circle. 


ST.  MARK  13.  4.     P  XMk  347 

the  temple,  Peter  and  James  and  John  and  Andrew  asked 
him  privately,  [X^^j  'X'ell  us,  when  shall  these  things  be  ?  4 


point  ratlier  to  another  day  than  that  of  the  end  of  ch.  xii.  '  Over 
against  the  Temple  '  sets  the  scene  vividly  before  us.  It  and  the 
specification  of  the  four  disciples  present  with  Jesus  are  probably 
Petrine  touches. 

asked  him.  privately.  The  verb  'asked'  in  the  original 
goes  strictly  only  with  Peter,  who  may  alone  have  voiced  the 
question  exercising  the  minds  of  all  four  (cf.  verse  i). 

4.  Tell  us,  wlieii  shall  these  things  be  ?  The  question 
was,  it  seems,  suggested  by  what  Jesus  had  said  of  the  overthrow 
of  the  massive  buildings  on  which  they  were  now  looking.  Yet 
it  is  possible  that  now  in  conversation  with  the  inmost  circle 
Jesus  had  referred  also  to  dther  related  topics.  Thus,  to  judge 
from  the  tenor  of  what  follows  in  vv.  5  f.,  9%  11-13,  21,  28-37, 
he  may  well  have  alluded  to  his  coming  temporary  departure 
(mysterious  though  it  was  to  them  still\  to  be  followed  by  a 
return  in  manifest  Messianic  power.  This  is  quite  compatible 
with  \vhat  is  said  in  the  special  '  Note  on  the  Apocalyptic  Dis- 
course '  just  below,  to  the  effect  that  much  in  that  discourse  as  we 
have  it  in  all  our  Gospels  could  not  have  been  uttered  at  that  lime 
to  hearers  in  their  then  state  of  mind,  to  judge  by  their  later  words 
and  acts  shortly  to  be  recorded.  They  could  not  have  taken  it  in 
enough  to  remember  it  later  on.  Further,  while  we  are  justified 
in  assuming  that  Jesus  had  spoken  of  more  than  the  mere  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple — without  reference  to  its  bearing  on  his  own 
future  and  theirs — there  was  no  need,  and  little  likelihood  on 
Jesus'  methods,  that  reference  would  be  made  to  anything  later 
than  that  event,  sufh  as  the  cosmic  accompaniments  of  the  Son  of 
Man's  glorious  Advent  and  the  universal  gathering  of  '  his  elect ' 
from  the  ends  of  the  earth  (vv.  24-27). 

and  what .  .  .  the  sign  .  .  .  ?  The  scope  of  the  enquiry  in  Mark 
and  Luke  was  (i)  the  ii'iiie  \vhen  '  these  things'  (all  implied  by  the 
destruction  of  the  temple)  were  to  come  about ;  and  (2)  '  the  sign,' 
some  definite  token,  by  which  they  might  know  the  events  in  ques- 
tion to  be  near.     The  latter  of  these  may  be  secondary  (see  notes). 

Matthew  goes  further  than  Mark,  and  defines  the  questions  as 
touching  not  only  the  destruction  of  the  temple  but  Christ's  own 
*  coming '  and  the  '  consummation  (cf.  Dan.  ix.  26  i.  in  LXX)  of  the 
age  '  (xxiv.  3\  i.  e.  the  present  order,  which  the  new  or  Messianic 
age  should  succeed.  Here  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  discourse, 
we  see  that  the  wording  in  Matt,  differs  somewhat  from  that  in 
Mark,  probably  owing  to  their  different  circles  of  tradition  (cf. 
differences  in  opening  verses^.  Thus  the  word  lor  'coming' 
which  it  uses,  viz.  Parousia,  was  a  technical  one  in  the  Apostolic 


348  ST.  MARK  13.  4.     XMk 

Church,  and  occurs  thrice  later  in  this  chapter  of  Matthew,  but 
not  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels.  Both  it  and  the  other  technical 
phrase,  'the  consummation'  {synieleid),  which  follows  (found  five 
times  in  Matt,  alone,  cf.  Dan.ix.  27, and  the  verbal  form  in  Mark, 
'  be  accomplislied  '),  may  point  to  the  rather  later  standpoint  of 
Matthew.  Similar,  and  even  greater,  difference  from  Mark  appears 
in  Luke,  owing  to  his  other  and  to  him  primary  source. 

Note  on  the  Apocalyptic  Discourse. 

It  cannot  but  strike  the  careful  reader  that  this  discourse  is  the 
only  one  of  any  considerable  length  embodied  in  Mark's  Gospel, 
which  usually  deals  with  typical  deeds  and  incidents  of  Jesus' 
ministry  rather  than  with  set  discourse.  The  exception  points  to 
a  specially  practical  interest  felt  in  the  subject,  both  by  the  evan- 
gelist and  his  readers,  at  the  date  when  this  Gospel  was  written. 
As  the  martyrdom  of  John  the  Baptist  is  told  with  much  fulness, 
presumably  as  having  special  interest  for  the  mart3'r  Church  (with 
the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter  fresh  in  its  memory),  so  this 
discourse  points  to  the  strained  interest  felt  by  Christians  in  what 
bore  on  the  topic  of  the  signs  and  time  of  their  redemption  from 
trials  and  persecution,  recently  become  more  severe — an  expec- 
tancy which  made  some  all  too  ready  to  give  heed  to  rumours 
that  the  Christ  had  indeed  appeared  here  or  there  (cf.  21).  From 
62  to  66  the  rule  of  the  Roman  Governors,  Albinus  (62-64)  ^^^ 
Florus  (64-66),  was  more  exasperating  to  the  Jews  than  ever, 
and  everything  seemed  to  betoken  imminent  crisis  in  the  fortunes 
of  Jerusalem  and  Judaea.  '  In  the  spring  of  66  the  outrages  of 
Florus  provoked  a  dreadful  tumult,  and  the  Governor  was  driven 
out  of  the  city  .  .  .  The  revolt  spread,  and  the  cities  of  Palestine 
were  scenes  of  internecine  strife  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Then 
came  Cestius  Gallus,  Governor  of  Syria,'  with  an  army.  '  He 
reached  Jerusalem,  fired  its  northern  suburb,  but  did  not  venture 
to  attack  the  city,  and  on  his  retreat  was  routed  in  a  defile  near 
Beth-horon  (Nov.  66).  The  way  was  open,  and  the  Chris- 
tians retired  to  Pella  beyond  Jordan  '  (Gwatkin,  in  Peake'sComm. 
on  the  Bible,  p.  6io).  This  occurred  before  the  final  stages  of  the 
struggle,  first,  internecine  between  parties  in  Jerusalem,  and  then 
also  with  the  besiegers,  which  ended  with  the  ruin  of  city  and 
temple  in  a.  d.  70.  Now  there  seems  no  hint  of  the  events  of 
66-70  in  the  allusions  to  coming  tribulations  in  Mark  xiii.  14  ff.  ; 
and  the  language  of  14-16  in  particular  is  hard  to  harmonize  with 
the  happenings  cither  in  66  or  later.  Indeed,  we  are  told  by 
Eusebius  that  the  fli<Tht  to  Pella  was  due  to  a  special  revelation  at 
the  time,  given  to  tiie  Cluircli's  leaders  in  Judaea. 

This  favours  a  date  not  later  tiian  early  in  a.  d.  66. 

On  the  other  hand  the  differences  in  the  three  Sj'noptic  versions 
of   this    Discourse    on  the  Last  Tilings  offer  clear  proof  of  the 


ST.  MARK  13.  4.     XMk  349 

tendency  towards  change  in  phrasing  and  perspective,  operative  in 
the  various  lines  of  tradition  on  a  subject  of  such  deep  practical 
interest  in  all  Christian  circles.  Further,  they  suggest  the  need  of 
trying  to  get  behind  even  the  most  primitive  of  the  three  accounts, 
that  of  Mark,  to  something  yet  more  original.  We  should  keep 
steadily  in  mind  the  limited  scope  of  the  opemttg  question{s),  as  an 
aid  to  detecting  the  points  at  which  fresh  horizons  are  opened  up, 
the  probability  being  that  these  go  beyond  Jesus'  own  utterance, 
as  distinct  from  later  developments  due  to  the  march  of  events 
and  the  effect  of  Jewish  Apocalyptic  language  or  conceptions  upon 
the  Church's  tradition.  Even  so  cautious  a  scholar  as  Sir  J.  C. 
Hawkins  {Horae  Synopticae,  ed.  2,  p.  n6)  writes  that  'a  good 
case  for  the  arrangement  of  various  materials  may  be  made  as  to 
.  .  .  ch.  xiii,  where  Colani's  suggestion  of  the  insertion  of  several 
verses  from  a  presumably  Jewish  apocalypse  has  met  with  accep- 
tance in  many  quarters'  (compare  Charles,  Eschatology,  pp.  323-9). 
He  adds  :  '  1  he  verses  generally  regarded  as  insertions  from  the 
'  little  Apocalypse  '  are  Mark  xiii.  7  f.,  14-20,  24-27,  30  f.,  and  the 
parallels  in  Matt,  and  Luke.'  Probably  the  phenomena  in  question 
are  capable  of  a  better  explanation  (see  below)  than  that  suggested 
by  Colani :   but  their  secondary  character  holds  good  in  any  case. 

There  is  also  another  source  of  secondary  matter  to  be  allowed 
for  as  tending  to  produce  expansion  of  the  discourse  in  the  way  of 
explicit  details,  so  as  to  develope  a  line  of  thought  originally 
present  only  in  general  terms.  That  is  the  experience  of  the 
Apostolic  Age  as  regards  persecutions,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
disciples'  witness  to  the  Gospel  on  the  other.  These  influences 
would  naturally  cause  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  forecast  of  the  future, 
up  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  to  which  his  discourse  primarily 
related,  to  be  filled  out  in  terms  of  actual  Christian  experience 
during  the  interval. 

The  net  result  of  these  considerations  is  a  certain  lack  of  unity 
in  the  Eschatological  Discourse  attributed  to  Jesus  in  all  the 
Synoptics,  some  parts  being  less  suited  than  others  to  the  occasion 
and  the  question(s)  which  gave  rise  to  it  in  its  original  form  (see 
note  on  verse  33),  as  also  to  Jesus'  own  manner  of  handling  such 
subjects  altogether.  These  less  relevant  and  historically  secon- 
dary elements  really  come  from  the  Church's  inner  life,  and  embody 
its  reflections  as  coloured  by  current  Apocalyptic  forms  of  thought 
touching  the  signs  of  the  End.  Thus  the  tradition  of  Jesus' 
actual  words  on  this  occasion  became  expanded  with  Apocalyotic 
elements  of  several  kinds,  due  to  the  hortatory  ministry  of  Chris- 
tian '  Prophets,'  men  of  inspired  spiritual  insight  and  moving 
utterance,  who  moulded  the  thoughts  and  outlook  of  their  brethren 
as  events  developed  fresh  crises  or  problems  for  faith  (see  note  on 
verse  14).  Such  prophetic  guidance  had  among  its  aims  '  to  soothe 
the  excitement  into  which  Christians  were  liable  to  fall,  from  their 


0 


350  ST.  MARK  13.  5.     XMk 

and  what  shall  be  the  sign  when  these  things  are  all  about 
to  be  accomplished  ?    And  Jesus  began  to  say  unto  them, 


intense  expectation  of  the  Second  Coming  of  the  Lord,  by  the 
assurance  that  various  events,'  according  to  traditional  Jewish 
Apocalyptic  (as  in  the  case  of  Paul's  written  warning  of  the  sort 
in  2  Tlies.  ii.,  checking  false  inferences  arising  out  of  the  state  of 
mind  just  alluded  to),  '  must  first  take  place  ;  and  at  the  same  time 
to  encourage  them  to  look  without  alarm  at  the  disquieting  occur- 
rences of  their  day,  these  being  all  embraced  within  the  divine 
plan  '  (Menzies).     It  is  doubtful,  then,  if  Jesus  named  any  '  sign  '. 

How  such  eschatological  forecasts  of  the  common  Apocalyptic 
type  came  to  blend  with  the  authentic  tradition  of  Jesus'  own 
%vords  on  this  occasion,  which  formed  the  original  outline 
gradually  filled  out  in  oral  transmission  into  the  present  imper- 
fectly homogeneous  discourse,  may  best  be  illustrated  by  the  *  sign  ' 
described  in  verse  14,  whether  it  formed  part  of  Jesus'  own 
teaching  or  not.  The  words  '  ike  abomination  of  desolation  stand- 
ing where  it  ought  not,'  the  crj'ptic  or  esoteric  meaning  of 
which  is  implied  by  two  F.vangelists'  parenthetic  warning  *  let 
him  that  readeth  understand,'  clearly  contain  an  allusion  to 
the  same  phrase  as  found  in  highly  apocalyptic  parts  of  Daniel 
(xi.  31,  xii.  II,  cf.  ix.  27).  Its  original  reference  in  Daniel  was 
to  an  idolatrous  altar  set  up  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  the 
Temple  ;  and  this  precedent  came  to  colour  the  expectations  of 
the  early  Apostolic  Church  (on  the  lines  of  current  Jewish  thought) 
as  to  the  sign  of  the  final  Apocal^'pse  of  Evil,  traditionally  looKed 
for  on  the  eve  of  God's  final  judgement  on  it  and  vindication  of  'the 
saints  '  at  the  appearance  of  Messiah. 

The  earlier  evidence  of  this,  as  of  the  way  in  which  Jewish 
Christians  reapplied  the  old  form  of  thought,  especially  in  terms 
of  Dan.  xi.  36  fl'.,  appears  in  Paul's  allusion  to  what  he  had  handed 
on  to  his  Thcssalonian  converts  on  lliesuliject  (2  Thess.  ii  1.  No 
doubt  he  had  received  it  as  a  'revelation  '  given  through  a  Chris- 
tian prophet  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  perhaps  Agabus  (cf.  his 
closely  related  forecast  of  a  great  coming  Famine,  one  of  the 
marks  of  the  final  crisis,  in  Acts  xi.  28,  and  see  xv.  32,  40  for 
Paul's  choice  of  another  'prophet, '  .Silas,  as  a  companion).  The 
meaning  now  given  to  the  sign  was  one  exemplified  afresh  by  the 
project  of  the  '  lawless  '  youth  in  tlie  purple,  Caius  Caligula,  about 
A.  D.  40,  to  erect  his  own  statue  in  the  Jewish  Temple  as  an  object 
for  Divine  worship  ;  and  though  tlie  project  was  frustrated  by  the 
good  sense  of  the  impet  ial  leprcsentative  on  the  spot,  3'et  it  served 
to  colour  the  form  in  which  the  fulfilment  of  Dan.  ix.  27  was 
henceforth  expected  in  Christian  prophetic  circles.  Seeing,  more- 
over, that  this  seems  to  be  the  sense  in  w^hich  the  'sign  '  is  taken 


ST.  MARK  13.  6.     XMk  351 

Take  heed  tliat  no  man  lead  you  astray.     Many  shall  6 

in  Mark  and  Matthew  (though  not  in  Luke,  writing  after  the  Fall 
of  Jerusalem  in  70  had  given  the  prophecy  another  meaning,  viz. 
the  desolating  Roman  army  encamped  about  the  Holy  City),  it 
points  to  the  prophecy  of  the  abomination  of  desolation,  as  found 
in  them,  being  of  a  date  later  than  a.  d.  40,  though  before  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  (67-70).  It  can  hardly  be  an  original  part  of 
Jesus'  own  answer  to  his  disciples'  inquiries  a  trace  even  of  an 
originally  purely  Jewish  outlook,  before  being  adopted  by  Jewish 
Christians,  may  survive  in  its  warning  being  to  '  those  in  Judaea' 
generally)  :  and  the  like  is  true  of  the  section  as  a  whole  which 
follows  on  this  sign  in  terms  of  current  Jewish  Apocalj^ptic. 

As  regards  the  perspective  of  Jesus'  original  address,  which  we 
are  bound  to  use  as  a  test  for  distinguishing  the  primary  element  of 
his  actual  words  from  the  Church's  later  reflections,  we  may  again 
quote  Menzies.  'While  he  certainly  foretold  his  death  and  his 
return,  there  are  strong  indications  that  he  expected  his  return  to 
succeed  his  death  almost  immediately' — or  rather  ere  long.  This 
is  what  he  seems  to  have  meant  by  the  expression  'alter  three 
days,'  a  brief  interval  like  that  spoken  of  in  Hos.  vi.  2  as  that 
during  which  God's  people  should  be,  as  it  were,  in  death — a  con- 
ception which  Jesus  seems  to  have  taken  (see  viii.  31)  as  his  lamp 
amid  the  darkness  of  the  path  of  rejection  unto  death  that  lay  just 
before  him  (see  xiv.  25,  62,  and  notes).  There  might,  indeed,  be 
time  for  impostors  to  come,  personating  him  as  the  Messiah 
returned  in  power  (see  verse  13).  But  the  period  contemplated  bj' 
him  as  open  for  such  deceptive  claims  was  a  short  one.  Its 
purpose  apparently  was  to  give  Israel  a  season  in  which  to  repent, 
in  the  fresh  light  of  his  witness  even  unto  death,  of  their  rejection 
of  God's  true  Messiah,  when  first  he  came  incognito,  in  humble 
guise  as  Evangelist  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  '  at  hand  ' — within 
their  grasp.  Here  we  may  compare  Peter's  words  in  Acts  iii. 
19  ff.,  '  Repent  ye  .  .  .  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  that  so 
there  may  come  seasons  of  reviving  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  (cf.  Hos.  vi.  2,  "after  two  days  will  he  revive  us,"  &c.),  and 
that  he  may  send  the  Christ,  .  .  .  even  Jesus  :  whom  the  heaven 
must  receive  until  the  times  of  restoration  of  all  things'  (see 
further  after  end  of  the  chapter). 

5.  Take  heed  tliat  no  man  lead  yon  astray.  It  would  be 
quite  like  Jesus  not  to  answer  the  disciples'  questions  at  all  after 
their  exact  form,  but  rather  by  turning  their  thoughts  in  a  more 
fruitful  direction.  Thus,  even  in  the  form  of  the  discourse  which 
follows,  Jesus  begins  with  a  practical  caution,  one  which  he  also 
repeats  as  lie  proceeds,  to  the  questioners  themselves.  Their  first 
need  was  to  look  to  themselves  and  their  own  peril  — the  peril  of 
impatience  amid  persecutions,  and  too  easy  credulity,  to  which 


352  ST.  MARK   13.  7,  8.     XMk 

come  in  my  name,  saying,  I  am  he ;  and  shall  lead  many 

7  astray,     f  And  when  ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and  rumours 
of  wars,  be  not  troubled  :  these  things  must  needs  come 

8  to  pass ;  but  the  end  is  not  yet.     For  nation  shall  rise 

they  might  be  the  more  open  if  their  minds  were  taken  up  by 
questions  about  times  and  signs.  There  lay  part  of  the  danger  of 
being  beguiled  and  'led  astraj' '  by  religious  impostors.  It  is 
possible,  too,  that  the  language  in  which  the  latter  danger  was 
expressed  in  the  Church's  tradition  by  the  sixties — when  it  took 
the  form  represented  by  our  Synoptics — has  taken  on  details  as 
to  'pseudo-Christs  and  pseudo-prophets  '  which  really  reflect  the 
experience  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  To  this  cause  some  of  the  word- 
ing in  even  the  opening  verses  (sf.)  may  be  due,  i.  e,  the  warning 
against  pseudo-Christs  before  that  against  being  caused  to  stumble 
and  become  impatient  through  hatred  and  persecution  from  official 
Judaism.  Here  the  wording  distinctive  of  Luke  may  be  more 
original,  viz.  'the  season  is  at  hand.' 

6.  Many  shall  come  in  my  name:  lit.  '  on  the  strength  of  my 
name'  (cf.  ix.  39),  '  on  my  authority,'  rather  than  '  in  mj'  name' 
=  '  as  personating  me' — which  is  what  '  I  am  he^  would  require. 
Hence  Luke's  independent  form  is  possibly  more  original,  viz.  say- 
ing, '  The  time  is  at  hand  :  go  not  after  them.'  This  may  have  been 
what  his  special  source  had,  with  no  '  I  am  he' — which  Luke  may 
have  taken  from  Mark  and  combined  with  the  simple  statement  of 
the  imminence  of  the  Kingdom,  put  forward  in  Jesus'  '  name.' 
(Thus  a  new  sense  would  be  given  to  'shall  come  in  my  name,' 
changing  it  from  the  act  of  misguided  disciples  to  that  of  rivals  — 
a  later  conception  which  is  implied  in  I\Iark  and  Matthew,  but 
may  not  be  the  original  one  in  the  Christian  tradition,  preserved 
in  Luke.)  As  the  verse  stands  in  Mark,  it  implies  that  would-be 
nationalist  Deliverers  should  claim  to  be  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth 
returned  from  the  dead,  very  much  as  Herod  and  others  thought 
Jesus  himself  was  John  the  Baptist  come  again.  Josephus  speaks 
of  purely'  Jewish  Messiahs  after  Jesus'  day,  and  mentions  one  by 
name — Theudas  {Antiq.  xx.  v.  i  ;  Jewish  IVar,  ii.  xiii.  4). 

7.  wars  and  rnnionrs  of  wars.  Times  of  political  unrest  and 
commotion  were  bound  to  come.  They  were  part  of  the  con- 
ventional '  signs  of  the  end  '  in  Apocalyptic,  and  are  probably 
secondary  elements  here. 

be  not  troubled:  these  things  'must  needs  come  to  pass.' 
They  were  not  to  take  these  things  as  the  sign  of  the  end  or 
become  disauieted  by  them.  Such  commotions  were  only  in  the 
normal  course  of  things,  in  the  present  condition  of  the  world, 
and  part  of  the  Divine  programme  revealed  in  Apocalyptic. 

8.  For  nation  sball  rise  against  nation.     This  and  all  other 


I 


ST.  MARK  13.9.     XMk  353 

against  nation,  and  kingdom  against  kingdom  :  there  shall 
be  earthquakes  in  divers  places  ;  there  shall  be  famines  : 
these  things  are  the  beginning  of  travail.l 

But  take  ye  heed  to  yourselves  :  ^  for  they  shall  deliver  9 
you  up  to  councils;  F  and  in  synagogues  shall  ye  be  beaten  ; 

*  omit,  W.  H.,  with  old  authorities. 


tokens  of  the  nearing  end  which  follow  in  verse  8  are  found  in  the 
Jewish  Apocalypse  of  Barucit  (prior  to  a.  d.  70),  eh.  xxvii :  compare 
the  terms  in  which  in  other  non-canonical  Apocalypses  announce- 
ments of  judicial  visitations  of  God  are  given  (e.  g  Book  of  Enoch, 
i.  6  ;  4  Ezra  xvi.  36-40).  The  verse  is  most  probably  an  instance 
of  the  expansion  of  Jesus'  words  in  tradition.  So  Luke  adds 
'pestilence,'  and  'terrors  and  great  signs  from  heaven'  (xxi.  11). 
Notice  the  sententiousness  of  Mark's  statement,  introduced  by 
'  for,'  as  though  it  were  in  terms  of  recognized  belief. 

these  things  are  the  hoginning'  of  travail :  i.  e.  the  '  pangs ' 
by  which  the  new  order  of  things,  '  the  regeneration  '  (Matt.  xix. 
28),  will  come  to  birth  :  cf.  Paul's  description  of  the  whole  creation 
as  travailing  in  pain  together  until  noiv,  waiting  for  the  event  by 
which  it  shall  be  '  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption ' 
(Rom.  viii.  21,  22).  In  the  Rabbinical  literature  mention  is  made 
of  the  'pangs'  or  'travails  of  Messiah,'  the  name  given  to  the 
calamities  by  which  the  Advent  of  Messiah  was  to  be  heralded. 

9.  But  take  ye  heed  to  yourselves.  A  caution  more  in  Jesus' 
wonted  manner,  this  time  with  reference  to  another  and  more 
present  kind  of  peril,  viz.  the  special  trials  awaiting  them  as  his 
disciples.      '  Ye  .  .  .  yourselves  '  is  emphatic  in  the  Greek. 

councils:  lit.  '  sanhedrins.'  Not  the  great  council  of  Jerusa- 
lem, but /ora/ councils,  the  bodies  which  had  the  power  of  discipline 
in  Jewish  towns,  judicial  courts  consisting  of  the  Elders  of  the 
synagogue. 

and  in  synagogTies  shall  ye  be  heaten.  In  each  sj'nagogue 
there  was  a  subordinate  official  called  the  'servitor'  [Chassan)  or 
beadle.  This  officer  of  the  congregation  had  not  onlj'  to  see  to 
the  production  of  the  copy  of  the  Scriptures  at  public  worship, 
and  to  its  removal  again,  but  was  also  charged  with  the  duty  of 
maintaining  order  and  executing  the  findings  of  the  S3'nagog£l 
court.     See  Paul's  case  in  2  Cor.  xi.  24. 

So  far  the  description  of  the  trials  awaiting  his  disciples  after 
his  death,  as  being  in  terms  of  Palestinian  conditions  (to  which 
Jesus'  teaching,  like  his  ministrj',  has  hitherto  been  limited),  may 
well  be  an  exact  report  of  the  words  said  on  this  occasion.  But 
the  reference  to  standing  before  Gentile  authorities,  as  implying  a 

A  a 


354  ST.  MARK   13.  lo,  ii.     XMk 

and  before  governors  and  kings  shall  ye  standi  for  my  sake, 

10  for  a  testimony  unto  them,    f  And  the  gospel  must  first  be 

1 1  preached  unto  all  the  nations.1  And  when  they  lead  you 
to  Jiedgemefit,  and  deliver  you  up,  be  not  anxious  before- 
hand what  ye  shall  speak  :  but  whatsoever  shall  be  given 


mission  beyond  Palestine  of  which  Jesus  has  breathed  no  hint,  is 
probably  a  secondary  touch  due  to  development  in  oral  tradition, 
as  verse  lo  also  seems  to  be. 

governors:  rulers  less  than  royal,  the  term  used  in  the  N.  T. 
for  the  official  representatives  of  the  Imperial  power  in  the 
provinces,  including  the  Roman  Procurator  of  Judaea  (Matt, 
xxvii.  2). 

kings  :  supreme  rulers,  whether  kings  of  particular  states  or 
Roman  Caesars. 

So  Peter  stood  before  King  Herod  (Acts  xii.  i  flf.),  and  Paul 
had  to  stand  before  the  governors  Felix  and  Festus,  before  the 
^/«_n-Agrippa  (Actsxxvi.  1-32),  and  before  the  emperor 'Liero  (a Tim. 
iv.  16). 

for  a  testimony  unto  them.  To  bear  witness  for  Christ,  i.  e. 
to  give  them  the  chance  of  repenting  and  turning  to  faith  in  him. 
In  Luke  another  result  is  contemplated  :  '  It  shall  turn  unto  you 
for  a  testimony'  (xxi.  13). 

10.  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  preached  unto  all  the 
nations.  This  is  ignored  in  Luke,  as  though  not  in  the  tradition 
otherwise  known  to  him.  It  would  be  quite  a  new  thought  to 
Jesus'  hearers,  but  one  taken  for  granted  in  the  Apostolic  Age, 
that  world-wide  extension  of  the  '  glad  tidings,'  by  way  of 
'witness'  to  all,  must  precede  the  'end.'  This,  too,  was  in  the 
Divine  purpose  :  it  '  must '  be.  Even  by  about  a.  d.  55,  j-ears 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Paul  could  say  that  '  from 
Jerusalem,  and  round  about  even  unto  Illyricum,'  he  had  'ful- 
filled the  gospel  message  of  Christ'  (Rom.  xv.  19),  and  that  his 
mission  would  take  him  next  to  the  far  west,  into  Spain  (Rom. 
xv.  24,  28).  Thus  wc  read  in  Rom.  xi.  25,  'a  hardening  in  part 
has  happened  to  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the  Nations  shall  have 
come  in.' 

11.  anxious  beforehand:  an  expressive  word  :  it  conveys  the 
idea  of  the  distraction  caused  by  anxiety  about  what  may  happen 
or  what  ought  to  be  done.  He  arms  them  against  such  distractions 
by  giving  them  the  assurance  of  Divine  help  to  meet  these  excep)- 
tional  trials  of  their  mental  resources  and  courage.  That  this  verse 
embodies  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus — and  no  known  occasion  for  it 
is  more  suitable  than  the  present  one — is  made  the  more  likely  by 


ST.  MARK  13.  12.     XMk  355 

you  in  that  hour,  that  speak  ye :  for  it  is  not  ye  that 
speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost.     And  brother  shall  deliver  i  a 
up  brother  to  death,  and  the  father  his  child  ;  and  children 
shall  rise  up  against  parents,  and  *  cause  them  to  be  put  to 

*  Or,  put  them  to  death 

its  double  preservation  in  Luke  (see  xii.  iif.),  as  well  as  by  the 
highly  Hebraic  form,  independent  of  Mark,  in  which  he  has  it  here. 
it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  the 
time  to  make  their  defence  shall  c  me,  the  Spirit  of  God  will 
prompt  what  they  ought  to  sa}-.  In  Luke  this  assurance  is  given 
in  more  particular  terms,  recalling  the  ancient  promise  to  Moses 
(Exod.  iv.  II,  &c.),  'I  will  give  you  a  mouth  and  wisdom,  which 
all  your  adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to  withstand  or  to  gainsay ' 
(xxi.  15).  In  Jewish  prophecy  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  was  one  of  the  tokens  of  the  Messiah 
and  the  Messianic  age  (Isa.  xi.  2,  xlii.  i,  lix.  21,  Ixi.  i  ;  Mic.  iii.  8  ; 
Joelii.  28).  The  term  '  holy  spirit'  occurs  in  the  O.T.,  but  rarely. 
In  Ps.  11.  II  God's  'holy  spirit'  appears  as  the  principle  or  power 
of  sanctification  ;  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  10,  11  the  'holy  spirit'  is  a  spirit  in 
which  God  acts  in  some  way  personally,  and  is  on  the  way  to  be 
conceived  of  as  a  personal  power.  And  this  is  seen  in  the 
Apocrypha  also.  But  we  have  not  in  the  O.  T.  the  full  and  mani- 
fold doctrine  of  the  Spirit  of  God  that  is  contained  in  the  N.  T. 
use  of  '  the  Holy  Spirit'  (A.  V.  '  Holy  Ghost '),  and  has  so  large 
a  place  in  the  distinctive  teaching  of  the  N.  T. 

12.  brother  shall  deliver  up  brother.  'Social  strife  is  a 
common  feature  in  Apocalyptic  descriptions  of  the  last  daj's' 
(Allen)  :  see  4  Ezra  v.  9,  vi.  24,  Apoc.  Barucli  Ixx.  3.  Allen  also 
quotes  a  Rabbinic  passage  very  similar  to  this  verse  in  connexion 
with  the  generation  to  which  Messiah  comes.  This  might  seem 
to  suggest  that  this  verse  affords  another  instance  of  details  added 
to  the  tradition  later  on.  Yet  one  may  recall  Jesus'  words  in 
Matt.  X.  35  f.,  and  especially  Luke  xii.  49-53,  'I  came  to  cast  fire 
upon  the  earth  .  .  .  division.  For  there  shall  be  from  henceforth 
five  in  one  house  divided  .  .  .  father  against  son  .  .  .'  ;  comp. 
Mic.  vii.  6  (and  Mai.  iv.  6),  the  language  of  which  is  used  in  all 
these  passages.  Terrors  of  constituted  authorities  are  not  the 
worst  they  have  to  face.  They  will  suffer  from  the  more  bitter 
and  insidious  persecution  of  friends,  even  of  those  related  to  them 
by  the  closest  ties  of  nature. 

and  cause  them  to  be  put  to  death :  the  margin  of  the  R.V. 
puts  it  directly,  '  put  them  to  death.'  But  the  idea  seems  to  be 
'  shall  work  their  death.'     This  goes  rather  beyond  any  forecast 


356  ST.  MARK  13.  13.     X^^ 

13  death.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for  my  name's 
sake  :  but  he  that  endureth  to  the  end,  the  same  shall  be 
saved. 


that  we  have  in  Jesus'  own  words  elsewhere,  touching  the  severity 
of  the  persecutions  awaiting  his  fuUowers. 

13.  ye  shall  toe  hat::d  cf  all  men  for  my  name's  sake.  These 
words  mean  not  only  that  the  disciples  shnll  be  hated,  but  that 
this  will  be  their  daily  lot.  Their  first  and  last  offence  will  be  the 
fact  that  they  are  Christians.  In  Peter's  Epistle  to  the  scattered 
churches  of  Asia  Minor  we  already  hear  of  suffering  *  as  a  Cliris- 
tian  '  (i  Pet.  iv.  i6  .  The  early  Christian  writers  speak,  one  after 
another,  of  suffering  '  for  the  name.' 

he  that  endureth  to  the  end.  The  phrase  *  to  (the)  end  ' 
perhaps  does  not  here  refer  to  the  crisis  of  the  end,  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  or  the  end  of  things,  of  which  the  four  had  inquired. 
It  describes  the  completeness  of  the  endurance,  endurance  '  to  a 
finish.'  Such  steadfastness  has  a  large  place  in  the  N.  T.,  especi- 
ally in  the  Epistles  of  Paul  and  the  Book  of  Revelation  (Rom.  v.  3, 
&c.,  viii.  25  ;  i  Thess.  i.  3  ;  2  Thess.  i.  4,  iii.  5  ;  Jas.  i.  3,  4 ;  i  Pet. 
ii.  20 ;  Heb.  xii.  i  ;  Rev.  i.  g,  ii.  2,  3,  iii.  10,  xiii.  10,  &c.).  josephus 
uses  the  word  of  the  indomitable  constancy  of  the  heroes  of  the 
Maccabean  struggle  (Antiq.  xii.  vi.  7).  Luke  gives  this  caution 
a  notable  turn,  'In  3'our  patience  ye  shall  win  your  souls'  (or 
'lives,'  xxi.  ig).  The  saying  in  Mark  looks  like  a  proverbial  one 
in  the  Church :  see  '  the  faithful  saying'  in  a  Tim.  ii.  11- 13. 

xiii.  14-23.  T/te  Sign  of  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  (cf.  Matt.  xxiv. 
15-25  ;  I.uke  xxi.  20-24,  xvii.  2a  f.,  31).  In  view  of  the  traditional 
Apocalyptic  language  found  in  this  section,  and  that  which  follows 
(24-27),  there  is  good  reason  to  regard  much,  if  not  all,  of  it  as 
secondary.  Such  a  view  is  so  far  confirmed  by  the  divergences 
found  in  the  parallels  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  including  Luke  xvii. 
22  ff.  Comparison  of  tiicse  suggests  an  original  nucleus  somewhat 
as  follows: — During  the  coming  season  of  trial  just  described, 
'Days  will  come,  when  ye  shall  desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of 
the  Son  of  man,  and  shall  not  sec  it '  (Luke  xvii.  a2).  Then  let 
them  beware  of  rumours  that  the  Christ  is  '  here  '  or  '  there ' 
(v.  ai,  cf.  Luke  xvii.  23  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  26).  'For  as  the  lightning 
Cometh  forth  from  the  east,  and  is  seen  even  unto  the  west ;  so 
shall  be  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man.  And  they  answering  say 
unto  him,  Where,  Lord?  And  he  said  unto  them.  Where  the 
carcase  is,  thither  will  the  eagles  (or  vultures)  be  gathered  together ' 
(Matt.  xxiv.  27  f.  ;  Luke  xvii.  a4,  37).  Such  a  question  and  answer 
would  fittingly  go  back  to  the  idea  of  the  destruction  impending 
over  Jerusalem  (as  part  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  power 


ST.  MARK  13.  14.     XMk  357 

FBut  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desolation  standing  14 

and  judgement),  which  was  the  starting-point  or  occasion  of  the 
whole  discourse.  The  above  would  be  in  full  keeping  with  the 
practical  tenor  of  the  discourse,  where  we  can  be  surest  of  its 
wording,  both  in  its  opening  warning  and  especially  in  its  final 
call  to  watchfulness,  seeing  that  the  exact  moment  of  the  Master's 
return  is  known  only  to  God  (28-37). 

After  the  whole  section  (14-27)  thus  reconstructed  in  outline, 
probably  came  the  section  in  which  Jesus  dealt  more  directlj'with 
the  disciples'  question  as  to  the  iitne  of  tlie  destruction  of  the  temple 
and  all  connected  therewith  (he  makes  no  reference  at  all  to  any 
'  sign '  to  mark  it  out^  :  and  inperfect  keeping  with  his  usual 
manner,  it  is  in  parabolic  fortn,  not  in  that  of  Apocalyptic  de- 
scription like  the  section  14-27,  which  makes  '  the  parable '  which 
follows  in  28  f.  seem  both  vague  and  belated.  '  But  from  the  fig- 
tree  learn  the  symbolic  lesson  it  has  to  give.'  By  its  aid  they  shall 
know  how  to  divine  the  near  approach  of  that  touching  which  they 
had  asked.  Then  he  is  represented  as  declaring  that  it  will  all 
happen  within  their  own  generation.  '  But  of  that  day  or  hour 
knoweth  no  man  .  .  .  Take  ye  heed,  watch ;  for  ye  know  not  when 
the  time  is,'  when  the  lord  of  the  house  cometh  (like  a  thief  in  the 
night,  Matthew  and  Luke). 

14.  But  when  ye  see  the  abomination  of  desolation.  From 
personal  warnings  Jesus  is  represented  as  proceeding  to  speak 
next  of  the  event  in  which  they  may  see  tlie  special  'sign  '  of  the 
end.  Wars  and  rumours  of  wars  heard  of,sX  a  distance,  are  not  to 
be  made  too  much  of.  But  when  the  Holy  Land  itself  afl'ords  a 
warning,  then  it  is  time  to  give  heed. 

The  '  abomination  of  desolation  '  is  '  the  abomination  that  causes 
desolation.'  The  expressive  term  '  abomination '  occurs  in  a  some- 
what similar  sense  in  Rev.  xvii.  4,  5,  xxi.  27.  In  the  O.  T.  it  is 
used  especially  of  things  belonging  to  idolatrous  worship,  e.  g.  of 
idols  (Deut.  xxix.  17),  false  gods  (Ezek.  vii.  20),  Milcom  in  par- 
ticular, 'the  abomination  of  the  Ammonites'  (i  Kings  xi.  5; 
2  Kings  xvi.  3).  The  precise  phrase,  *  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion,' occurs  twice  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  (xi.  31,  xii.  11  ;  cf. 
ix.  27)  ;  and  that  the  Danielle  passages  are  in  view  here  is  ex- 
pressly stated  by  Matthew,  who  adds  '  which  was  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet'  (xxiv.  15). 

What  is  to  be  understood  by  the  phrase  ?  In  the  prophecy  of 
Daniel  it  probablj^  refers  to  the  outrages  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
the  Syrian  overlord,  and  particularly  to  the  desecration  of  the 
temple  by  placing  a  heathen  altar  upon  the  altar  of  burnt-offering. 
In  the  Apocryphal  literature  it  is  quoted  in  connexion  with  the 
erection  of  an  altar  to  Jove  in  the  temple  (i  Mace.  i.  54).  Luke, 
writing  probably  after  A.  d.  70.  gives  as  an  equivalent  statement 


358  ST.  MARK  13.  1 4-     XMk 

where  he  ought  not  (let  him  that  readeth  understand), 

'when  ye  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies'  (xxi.  20). 
There  however,  the  distinctive  phrase  '  the  abonnitafion  of  deso- 
lation '  is  lacking,  so  that  the  problem  of  its  exact  meaning  remains 

as  before.  .      .u 

Some  have  thought  that  it  contains  an  oblique  reterence  to  the 
Roman  standards,  which  as  bearing  the  effigy  of  the  emperor,  and 
so  being  objects  of  homage  paid  by  the  soldiery,  were  an  <  abomina- 
tion '   to  Jews  ;  and  that  accordingly  the  advance  of  a  desolating 
Roman  army,  with  these  emblems,  upon  the  sacred  soil  of  Judaea 
is  meant       But  the  Roman  standards  were  already  visible  in  the 
Holy  Land  and  were  even  in  the  Holy  City :  so  that  the  form  of 
the  expression  hardly  finds  justification  in  such  a  reference.     It 
seems   therefore,  to  point  to  something  more  like  its  original  or 
Danielle  sense  (cf.  2  Thess.  ii.  3  ff-  and  the  Note  appended  to  that 
on  V   4)   viz.  the  setting  up  of  an  idolatrous  symbol  in  a  specially 
holy  spot,  meaning  the  precincts  of  the  Jewish  Temple  itself-to 
which  Matthew's  'in  a  holy  place'  probably  refers.     In  Marks 
form  of  tradition  the  R.  V.  has  (in  keeping  with  the  masculine 
participle  found  in  apposition  to  the  neuter  word  for  'abomination  ) 
'standing  where  /le  ought   not,'   instead  of  '  where  <V  ought  not,' 
a  reading  which  represents  the   '  abomination  '   as  personal.     This 
points  to^the  personal  form  of  the  symbol  in  question,  i.  e.  a  Roman 
Emperor's  effigy,  in  fulfilment  of  Caligula's  plan.    Josephus  states 
that  in  A.  D.  70  the  Romans  actually  brought  their  ensigns  into  the 
temple    and  placed  them  over  against   the  eastern  gate  ;  and  he 
adds   that   'there  they   offered  sacrifices  to  them,  and   with  the 
loudest  acclamations  proclaimed  Titus  emperor'  {Jewish  War  vi. 
vi    i)     That  this  fulfilment  of  the  general  language  of  the  prophecy 
was  not  in  the  Evangelist's  view  when  he  wrote,  seems  clear  from 
the  fact  that,  though  it  is  given  as  the  sign  for  'those  in  Judaea'  to 
'  flee '  for  safety  '  to  the  mountains,'  by  the  time  it  occurred,  at  the 
end  of  the  siege  oi  Jerusalem,  it  was  too  late  to  serve  as  warning 
for  those  in  Jerusalem,  while  for  those  in  the  country  regions  of 
Tudsea    it    would    also    have    little   or   no    point.     Accordingly    it 
implies  that  Mark  was  writing  not  only  before  a.  d.  70  but  also 
before  the  siege  began,  a  year  or  more  earlier. 

let  liim  that  readeth  understand:  i.  e.  let  the  reader  inler- 
pret  the  'sign'  aright.  A  parenthetical  sentence,  thrown  m  by 
the  Evangelist  with  the  view  of  calling  special  attention  to  this 
significant  sentence  of  the  prophetic  discourse,  the  sentence  that 
for  him  indicates  the  '  sign'  required.  That  the  end  of  the  book 
of  Daniel,  where  first  the  above  mysterious  phrase  appears,  was 
deeply  pondered  even  by  Judaism,  is  clear  from  the  variants  m 
the  Greek  text  of  it  :  and  it  must  have  been  much  in  the  minds  ot 
early  Christians  also.      Hence  this  oracle  touching  the  '  sign  '   of 


ST.  MARK   13.  15-19.     XMk  359 

then  let  them  that  are  in  Judaea  flee  unto  the  mountains  : 
and  let  him  that  is  on  the  housetop  not  go  down,  nor  15 
enter  in,  to  take  anything  out  of  his  house  :  and  let  him  16 
that  is  in  the  field  not  return  back  to  take  his  cloke.  But  17 
woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child  and  to  them  that  give 
suck  in  those  days  !  And  pray  ye  that  it  be  not  in  the  18 
winter.     For  those  days  shall  be  tribulation,  such  as  there  19 


the  approaching  end  may  well  have  arisen  in  ihe  Chuicli  through 
some  Christian  prophet  (adopting  an  earlier  Jewish  oracle  to  like 
effect").  Such  is  indeed  suggested  by  the  tradition  preserved  in 
Eusebius,  possibly  after  Hegesippus  (who  lived  in  Palestine 
rather  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century),  about  an  even 
more  explicit  warning  coming  'through  revelation  '  at  the  time  to 
the  leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  Church. 

let  them  that  are  in  Judaea  flee.  Flight,  instant  flight, 
without  tarrying  or  looking  back,  will  then  be  wisdom  for  '  those 
in  Judaea.'  So  Mattathias  and  his  sons  '  fled  ...  to  the  mountains ' 
(in  i  Mace.  ii.  28\  as  remote  from  an  invading  army.  There  is 
here  no  reference  to  Christians  as  such,  probably  because  a  Jewish 
Apocalj'ptic  utterance  is  here  being  followed.  There  is  no  refer- 
ence even  to  Christian  Jews,  or  to  their  flight  to  Pella  in  Peraea, 
one  of  the  towns  of  Decapolis,  in  a.  d.  66.  Eusebius  {Eccles.  Hist. 
III.  V.  3)  says  that  such  a  step  was  taken  in  accordance  with  the 
warning  of  a  prophetic  oracle  given  to  the  existing  Christian  leaders 
in  Jerusalem,  before  the  war  began,  '  by  revelation  '  through  some 
Christian  prophet  (like  Agabus  in  Acts  xi.  27  f.,  xxi.  10) — perhaps 
defining  the  above  oracle  for  purposes  of  practical  action. 

15.  on  the  housetoij.  The  roofs  of  Eastern  houses,  which 
were  much  frequented  by  the  family,  being  used  for  purposes  of 
sleep,  watching,  prayer,  worship,  &c.  (of.  i  Sam.  ix.  25  ;  Neh. 
viii.  16  ;  Isa.  xxii,  i  ;  Jer.  xix.  13  ;  Zeph.  i.  5  ;  Acts  x.  g\  were 
reached  by  a  flight  of  steps  from  without.  In  quitting  the  roof 
there  was  no  need  to  go  within  the  house ;  and  the  fugitive  in  this 
great  peril  was  not  to  do  so — with  the  view  c.  g.  of  taking  any  of 
his  goods  with  him. 

16.  to  take  his  clohe.  The  labourer  might  be  overtaken  by 
this  crisis  when  at  work  in  the  fields  ;  and  if  he  would  escape,  he 
could  not  risk  the  loss  of  time  involved  even  in  the  act  of  picking 
up  his  outer  garment,  taken  off  when  he  set  to  his  task. 

18.  not  in  the  winter:  whose  inclemency  \vould  make  escape 
so  much  more  difficult.  From  18-23  Luke  has  quite  a  different 
version. 

ID.   For  those  days  shall  be  tribulation :  a  free  quotation  of 


360  ST.  MARK  13.  20-22.     XMk 

hath  not  been  the  like  from  the  begmning  of  the  creation 

20  which  God  created  until  now,  and  never  shall  be.  And 
except  the  Lord  had  shortened  the  days,  no  flesh  would 
have  been  saved  :    but  for  the  elect's  sake,  whom  he 

21  chose,  he  shortened  the  days.l  And  then  if  any  man 
shall  say  unto  you,  Lo,  here  is  the  Christ ;  or,  Lo,  there  j 

22  believe  '^it  not :  \  for  there  shall  arise  false  Christs  and  false 


a 


Or,  him 


Dan.  xii.  i,  'There  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was 
since  there  was  a  nation  even  to  that  same  time.'  Cf.  Joel  ii.  2,  Jer. 
XXX.  7,  I  Mace.  ix.  27,  and  Assumption  of  Moses,  viii.  (Allen). 

20.  except  the  Lord  had  shortened  the  days.  That  is,  God, 
in  His  Divine  counsel,  would  '  cut  short '  {lit.  amputate)  the  season 
of  trial.  Here  ideas  and  language,  especially  this  clause  and  the 
reference  to  'the  elect,' seem  derived  from  Jewish  Apocalyptic: 
e.  g.  Apoc.  Bar.  xx.  i  f.,  Apoc.  Abr.  xxix.  'The  elect '  is  common 
in  Enoch,  e.  g.  i.  i,  xxxviii.  2-4  :  cf.  Wisdom,  iii,  9.  There  is 
a  close  parallel,  apparently  independent  of  this  passage  and  derived 
rather  from  traditional  Apocalyptic,  in  Barn.  iv.  3  (c.  a.  d.  75)  : 
'  For  to  this  end  the  Supreme  Master  hath  cut  short  [another 
word]  the  seasons  and  the  days,  that  His  Beloved  might  hasten 
and  arrive  at  his  inheritance.' 

hut  for  the  elect's  sake,  whom  he  chose :  a  Hebrew 
pleonasm  (the  second  clause  is  not  in  Matthew),  making  the  ideamore 
emphatic.  It  has  a  long  history  in  Scripture.  In  the  O.  T.  it 
designates  those  whom  God  has  placed  in  a  peculiar  relation  to 
Himself,  the  covenant-people  generally,  or  the  true  Israel  who 
are  according  to  His  purpose  (Ps.  cv.  6;  Isa.  xlii.  i  ;  xliii.  20, 
Ixv.  9V  Here  it  means  the  latter,  God's  chosen  ones,  selected 
through  obedience  to  the  Gospel  (i  Pet.  i.  i,  2)  from  among  Israel 
at  large  plater  from  the  Gentiles  also).  The  phrase  occurs  in  the 
Gospel  only  in  this  section  (14-27),  with  the  exception  of  Luke 
xviii.  7,  a  passage  the  language  at  least  of  which  has  some  secon- 
dary features. 

21.  Sec  note  on  xiii.  14-23,  for  the  relation  of  this  to  Matt, 
xxiv.  26,  Luke  xvii.  23  f,  where  the  proper  wording  and  context 
seem  to  be  given  more  fully,  and  lead  naturally  to  28  ff.  below. 

22.  false  Christs  and  false  prophets.  The  '  false  Christ  '  or 
pseudo-Messiah  was  one  who  purported  to  be  Messiah  (compare 
'antichrist,'  a  rival  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  in  i  John  ii.  22,  iv.  3; 
2  John  7).  The  'false  prophet,'  not  unknown  in  O.T.  times 
(Zech.  xiii.  a),  was  a  more  frequent  phenomenon  tiian  the  '  false 
Christ'  in  N.  T.  times:  compare  Bar- Jesus  (Acts  xiii.  6)  for  the 


ST.  MARK  13.  23,  24.     XMk  361 

prophets,  and  shall  shew  signs  and  wonders,  that  they 
may  lead  astray,  if  possible,  the  elect.    But  take  ye  heed  :  23 
behold,  I  have  told  you  all  things  beforehand. 

But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation,  the  sun  shall  24 

type.  At  the  end  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  we  read  that  Jesus 
charged  his  disciples  to  'beware  of  false  prophets,'  coming  to  the 
unvvar}'-  '  in  sheep's  clothing,'  while  inwardly  they  were  '  ravening 
wolves'  (Matt.  vii.  15).  13ut  these  are  probably  another  type, 
viz.  unworthy  and  self-seeking  Christian  teachers  (cf.  21-23). 

shall  shew  signs  and  wonders.  This  is  an  element  of 
danger  not  noticed  in  the  impostors  previously  referred  to  (xiii.  6). 
'  Signs  and  lying  wonders'  are  mentioned  as  part  of  the  working 
of  Satan  in  the  '  lawless  one'  who  is  to  come  before  the  Second 
Advent  of  Christ  (2  Thess.  ii.  1-12).  '  Signs'  are  things  pointing 
beyond  themselves  to  something  else;  'wonders'  are  in  their 
nature  portents,  phenomena  out  of  the  common  order  (cf.  Exod. 
vii.  II,  12;  also  Deut.  xiii.  i,  Ps.  cxxxv.  9,  &c.).  Certain  mighty 
deeds  of  Jesus  himself  or  the  Apostles  are  sometimes  called 
'  wonders '  in  the  N.  T.,  especially  in  the  Book  of  Acts  (ii.  22,  43, 
iv.  30,  V.  12,  vi.  8,  xiv.  3,  xv.  12).  Josephus  reports  how  false 
prophets  arose,  who  persuaded  multitudes  to  go  with  them  into 
the  desert  to  see  them  work  signs  and  wonders  (cf.  Rev.  xiii.  11- 
17)  there. 

23.  But  take  yo  heed.  This  third  delivery  of  the  same  warning 
(cf.  5,  g)  has  no  parallel  in  Luke  (or  even  Matthew). 

xiii.  24-27.  The  End,  and  (he  Coming;  of  the  Son  of  man  (cf. 
Matt.  xxiv.  29-31  ;  Luke  xxi.  25-28).  This  section  goes  beyond 
the  scope  of  the  original  questions  of  the  disciples  as  determined 
by  their  occasion,  viz.  Jesus'  prediction  of  coming  judgement  on 
the  temple.  This  fact  points  to  the  secondary  nature  of  the 
description  of  the  cosmic  phenomena  of  Jesus'  second  Advent  and 
its  sequel,  which  evidently  existed  in  Luke's  other  source  in  a 
different  form  (25,  26a),  both  versions  being  on  traditional 
Apocalyptic  lines. 

24.  But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation.  The  '  tribula- 
tion '  itself  now  becomes  the  subject,  and  the  vision  of  the  siege 
and  fall  of  the  Holy  City  passes  into  that  of  the  close  of  the  existing 
dispensation,  and  the  second  Advent  of  Christ.  In  Matthew  the 
relation  of  the  one  to  tlie  other  is  definite,  ^  immediately  a.her  the 
tribulation  of  those  days.'  In  Mark  that  relation  is  given  in  more 
general  terms.  The  personal  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  not  to 
precede  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  to  come  'after  that 
tribulation,'  yet  '  in  those  daj'S.'  Even  in  Mark,  therefore,  the 
*  end,'  which  is  now  foretold,  is  described  as  belonging  generally 


362  ST.  MARK   1 3.  25,  26.     XMk 

25  be  darkened,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light,  and 
the  stars  shall  be  falling  from  heaven,  and  the  powers 

26  that  are  in  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken.     And  then  shall 
they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  clouds  with  great 


to  the  same  momentous  period  in  which  the  overthrow  of  the 
Jewish  order  takes  place.  The  latter  event  is  given  as  the 
prelude  of  the  former  ;  the  removal  of  the  old  order  prepares  for 
the  entrance  of  the  new. 

the  sun  shall  toe  darkened.  This  portent  and  the  others 
which  are  mentioned  look  beyond  the  tribulation  connected  with 
the  siege  of  Jerusalem  and  the  ruin  of  the  Temple.  The  terms 
are  of  the  same  imaginative  order  as  those  of  O.  T.  prophecy,  the 
symbolism  of  which  they  follow,  as  it  existed  in  technical  and 
developed  form  in  Jewish  Apocalyptic.  The  O.  T.  prophets  and 
the  later  Apocalypses  employed  such  imagery  in  their  announce- 
ments of  judicial  interventions  of  God  in  the  histor3'  of  nations, 
great  political  convulsions,  and  exceptional  changes  of  other  kinds, 
such  as  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  last  days  (Joel  ii. 
28-32  ;  Acts  ii.  16-21).  'The  stars  of  heaven  and  the  constella- 
tions thereof  shall  not  give  their  light :  the  sun  shall  be  darkened 
in  his  going  forth,  and  the  moon  shall  not  cause  her  light  to 
shine'  (Isa.  xiii.  lo"!.  This  is  a  prophet's  way  of  declaring  the 
certain  overthrow  of  Babylon.  So  with  the  fall  of  Edom  (xxxiv.  4). 
In  the  same  way  Amos  speaks  of  the  fall  of  the  Northern  kingdom 
(viii.  9'.  And  Ezekiel,  when  he  foretells  the  doom  of  Egypt,  does 
it  in  this  form  :  '  When  I  shall  extinguish  thee,  I  will  cover  the 
heaven,  and  make  the  stars  thereof  dark  ;  I  will  cover  the  sun 
with  a  cloud,  and  the  moon  shall  not  give  her  light.  All  the 
bright  lights  of  heaven  will  I  make  dark  over  thee,  and  set  dark- 
ness upon  thy  land,  saith  the  Lord  God  '  (xxxii.  7,  8).  In  each 
case  extraordinary  physical  phenomena,  eclipses,  earthquakes, 
and  the  like,  represent  Divine  acts  effecting  great  changes  in 
Church  or  State  ;  and  the  terms  were  originally  to  be  interpreted 
as  the  language  of  symbolism,  rather  than  of  literal  fact.  But  in 
Apocalyptic  such  forecasts  were  usually  taken  literally. 

25.  the  powers  that  are  in  the  heavens.  That  is,  the 
heavenly  bodies  generally,  the  same  as  the  '  host '  of  the  heavens 
in  Isa.  xxxiv.  4,  viewed  here  however  as  under  the  control  of 
some  angelic  power.  Luke  adds  a  description  of  the  effect  pro- 
duced by  these  portents  on  the  spectators. 

26.  And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming^  in 
clo^ids.  With  reference  to  Dan.  vii.  13  f.,  cf.  Mark  xiv.  62. 
Compare  Rev.  i.  7,  'Behold,  he  cometh  with  the  clouds;  and 
every  eye  shall  sec  him,  and  they  which  pierced  him  ;  and  all  the 


ST.  MARK  13.  27.     XMk  363 

power  and  glory.      And  then  shall  he  send  forth  the  27 

tribes  of  the  earth  shall  inourn  over  him '  (see  Zech.  xii.  lo  ff.)  : 
Rev.  xiv.  14,  'And  I  saw,  and  behold,  a  white  cloud  ;  and  on  the 
cloud  one  sitting  like  unto  a  son  of  man,  having  on  his  head  a 
golden  crown,  and  in  his  hand  a  sharp  sickle.'  The  announce- 
ment of  such  a  coming  is  preceded  in  Matthew's  Gospel  bj-  the 
words  *  and  then  shall  appear  ihe  sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in 
heaven  '  (xxiv.  30).  This  has  been  taken  to  mean  that  the  second 
Advent  will  be  heralded  by  a  vision  of  the  Cross  in  the  heavens  : 
and  with  some  reason.  For  it  is  borne  out  by  the  Didache.  xvi.  6  : 
'  And  then  shall  appear  the  signs  of  the  Truth  :  first  the  sign  of 
outspreading  [i.  e.  of  the  Lord's  hands,  cf.  Isa.  Ixv.  2,  Barnabas, 
xii.  4]  in  heaven,  then  the  sign  of  the  Trumpet's  voice,  and  third 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead — j'et  not  of  all,  but  as  was  said,  "  The 
Lord  shall  come,  and  all  the  saints  with  him"  (Zech.  xiv.  5). 
Then  shall  the  world  see  the  Lord  coming  upon  the  clouds  of 
heaven.'  But  whatever  their  meaning,  the  words  do  not  appear 
in  Mark  (or  Luke). 

The  verse  takes  us  back  to  Daniel's  vision  of  the  coming,  '  with 
the  clouds  of  heaven,'  of  one  'like  unto  a  son  of  man'  (vii.  13). 
Daniel's  vision  referred  to  the  advent  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the 
imperishable  kingdom  of  the  saints,  the  kingdom  of  the  regenerate 
Israel,  that  was  to  take  the  place  of  the  cruel,  godless  world- 
em|>ires.  The  'clouds  '  are  part  of  the  imagerj'  which  expresses 
the  heavenly  nature  of  this  new  kingdom.  Elsewhere  in  the  O.T. 
the  'clouds'  are  often  used  as  figures  of  the  descent  of  God  and 
His  intervention  on  behalf  of  His  people  i  cf.  Isa.  xix.  1  ;  Ps.  xviii. 
II,  12,  xcvii.  2).  But  that  the  '  Parousia '  or  second  coming  now 
in  question  was  understood  to  be  a  real,  objective  event,  however 
difficult  it  may  be  for  us  to  conceive,  appears  with  sufficient  dis- 
tinctness from  various  passages  of  the  N.  T.  (Matt.  xxiv.  3,  37,  39  ; 
I  Thess.  iii.  13,  iv.  15,  v.  23  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  i;  Jas.  v.  7,  &c.). 
Here,  too,  Jesus  is  clearly  identified  with  the  figure  in  Daniel's 
prophecj',  and  the  title,  '  Son  of  man,'  by  which  he  had  designated 
himself,  with  the  '  son  of  man  '  in  Daniel — no  longer  taken  as  a 
symbol  of  God's  Israel,  but  as  an  individual,  according  to  the  later 
Apocalyptic  reading  of  Daniel.  In  him,  the  king  of  Israel  and  the 
representative  of  man,  and  in  his  kingdom,  the  vision  was  now 
felt  by  the  Church  to  have  its  highest  and  final  fulfilment. 

27.  send  forth  tlie  angels  :  not  as  in  Matthew  '  his^  angels  ' 
(so  in  Matt.  xiii.  41,  xvi.  27),  the  more  primitive  conception  being 
that  God  places  His  angels  at  the  disposal  of  the  Son  of  man, 
'  when  He  again  bringeth  in  the  Firstborn  into  the  world  '  of  men 
(Heb.  i.  6).  Matthew  (xxiv.  31  >  has  also  '  with  a  great  sound  of 
a  trumpet' ;  compare  the  Didache,  in  note  on  verse  26  above. 

Luke  has  not  this  verse  at  all  (that  is,  it  was  not  part  of  the 


364  ST.  MARK  13.  28,  29.     XMk 

angels,  and  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four 
winds,  from  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  to  the  utter- 
most part  of  heaven  .1 

28  Now  from  the  fig  tree  learn  her  parable  :  when  her 
branch  is  now  become  tender,  and  putteth  forth  its  leaves, 

29  ye  know  that  the  summer  is  nigh  ;  even  so  ye  also,  when 
ye  see  these  things  coming  to  pass,  know  ye  that  ^  he  is 

"•  Or,  // 

tradition  otherwise  known  to  liim),  but  continues  after  verse  26, 
'  But  when  these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  look  up,  and  lift  up 
your  heads ;  because  your  redemption  draweth  nigh '  (cf.  Rom. 
viii.  23,  '  waiting  for  OMr  adoption,  the  redemption  of  our  body'). 
g'ather  togfether  his  elect.  The  '  elect '  are  now  claimed  as 
'  his  elect,'  the  elect  of  the  Son  of  man,  cf,  Enocli  Ivii.  2,  Iviii. 
The  day  of  his  return  will  be  the  day  of  the  gathering  of  all  his 
own,  and  of  the  open  manifestation  of  his  kingdom  (cf.  2  Thess. 
ii.  i). 

xiii.  28-37.  Lesson  of  the  Fig-tree  and  Fina!  Warnings  (cf.  Matt, 
xxiv.  32-42  ;  Luke  xxi.  29-36). 

28.  Now  from  the  fig  tree  learn  her  parable.  The  fig-tree, 
one  of  the  commonest  trees  in  the  country,  has  already  served  as 
tlie  occasion  for  solemn  warnings  and  counsel  (Mark  xi.  13,  14, 
20-25).  Jesus  here  makes  similar  use  of  it  again.  '  Her  parable ' 
is  the  lesson  she  suggests.  The  *  parable  '  here  is  one  of  the  class 
of  minor,  partial  parables,  an  illustration  or  analogy.  Possibly 
this  section  followed  almost  directly  on  verse  21  (or  even  13)  in 
Jesus'  original  discourse  :  see  note  on  14-23.  'The  signs  of  the 
times,'  in  Jesus'  sense,  were  likely  to  be  intrinsic  (as  in  Matt, 
xvi.  3),  rather  than  such  formally  defined  ones  as  in  14-27  :  of. 
the  simile  of  the  '  green  '  and  the  *  dry  '  tree  in  Luke  xxiii.  31. 

when  her  branch  is  now  become  tender,  and  putteth  forth 
its  leaves:  i.  e.  when  tiie  leaves  burst  forth,  as  the  earliest  token 
of  the  approach  of  summer  (cf.  Song  of  Songs,  ii.  11-13). 

29.  these  thing's  :  originally,  it  seems,  the  things  testing  his 
disciples'  fidelity  described  in  9a,  11-13,  ^"^  perhaps  21  also. 

he  is  nig'h :  rather,  'it  is  nigh,'  that  is,  the  decisive  event 
referred  to,  left  thus  in  its  unexplained  mystery.  Luke  specifies 
the  Kingdom  of  God  as  meant  by  the  spiritual  *  summer.'  Possibly 
this  is  right  in  essence,  but  the  immediate  reference  may  be  the 
things  of  verse  4,  viz.  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  as  leading  to 
the  Kingdom — the  central  theme  of  the  question  to  which  Jesus  is 
replying. 


ST.  MARK  13.  30-32.     XMk  365 

nigh,  even  at  the  doors.     Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  30 
generation  shall  not  pass  away,  until  all  these  things  be 
accomplished.    \  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away  :  but  31 
my  words  shall  not  pass  away.1     But  of  that  day  or  that  32 
hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven, 

even  at  tlxe  doors :  cf.  Jas.  v.  9.  His  disciples  ought  to  be 
able  to  recognize  the  significance  of  the  events  spoken  of,  and 
discern  in  them  the  beginnings  of  the  consummation. 

30.  This  generation  shall  not  pass.  The  word  '  generation  ' 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense,  which  it  has  in  Matt,  xxiii.  36 
and  in  the  Gospels  generally — the  body  of  men  then  living.  Jesus 
here  assures  his  disciples  that  the  crisis  in  view  (see  verse  4)  was 
not  remote,  and  intimates  that  the  things,  a// of  them,  of  which 
he  has  been  speaking — not,  it  may  be,  all  that  the  present  discourse 
contains — would  take  place  before  his  contemporaries  should  all 
have  departed  this  life.  This  verse  is  equivalent  in  effect  to  ix.  i, 
and  both  seem— if  they  were  actually  uttered  by  Jesus  as  they 
stand  -to  express  the  same  faith  as  the  phrase  '  rise  again  after 
three  days,'  as  explained  in  the  note  on  viii.  31. 

31.  This  verse  does  not  come  in  really  aptly  here.  It  seems 
like  an  adaptation  of  Jesus'  saying  in  Matt.  v.  18  about  the  Law 
(in  its  essence)  to  his  own  teaching.  The  object  of  its  use  here  is 
as  a  sort  of  assurance  (surely  not  needed  by  his  original  hearers, 
as  distinct  from  those  living  after  the  martyrdoms  of  James  the 
son  of  Zebedee  and  Peter,  two  of  the  original  hearers  of  this 
discourse)  that  '  the  words'  of  his  promise  that  'all  these  things' 
should  '  be  accomplished '  within  the  generation  that  saw  his  earthly 
ministry,  should  '  not  pass  away  '  without  fulfilment.  It  may  well 
be  secondary.     Verse  32  follov/s  on  verse  30  better  without  it. 

32.  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour  :  the  '  day  '  and  the  '  hour '  of 
the  final  accomplishment  of  what  he  had  in  mind  in  verse  30,  be 
they  merely  the  things  in  view  in  verse  4  or  certain  others  also 
which  are  reproduced  in  the  above  discourse. 

knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  ang'els  in  heaven,  neither 
the  Son.  The  precise  time  of  the  future  crisis  is  hidden  from  all 
but  the  Father.  It  is  one  of  the  things  He  hath  '  set  within  his 
own  authority '  (Acts  i.  7).  The  negatives  here  are  absolute  and 
exclusive, '  no  one,  not  even  the  angels,  nor  yet  the  Son.'  Angelic 
knowledge,  though  large,  is  not  unlimited  (Eph.  iii.  10  ;  i  Peter 
i.  12).  But  the  peculiarity  of  the  present  passage  is  that  '  the  Son  ' 
himself  is  coupled  with  tfie  angels  in  such  nescience.  The  declara- 
tion is  made,  too,  by  Jesus  himself,  and  in  terms  definite  and 
unqualified.  It  is  the  ascription  of  a  real  nescience,  not  of  an 
ignorance  operating  in  one  part  of  his  personality  but  not  in  the 


366  ST.  MARK  13.  33.     X^^ 

33  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.     Take  ye  heed,  watch 

other  ;  nor  an  ignorance  simply  assumed  for  a  certain  purpose, 
while  a  real  omniscience  remained  latent.  Nor  is  there  real 
difficulty  in  accepting  the  statement  as  it  stands  in  Mark's  Gospel. 
With  the  general  picture  of  Jesui'  humanity  there  given  it  is  quite 
of  a  piece,  though  it  is  the  one  explicit  statement  of  limitation  of 
knowledge  in  a  certain  direction,  and  that  on  his  own  lips.  Any 
difficulty  about  it  is  due  chiefly  to  later  theories  of  Christ's  Person, 
worked  out  on  the  lines  of  abstract  metaphj-sics  rather  than  of 
moral  psychology,  controlled  by  the  central  idea  of  the  unity  of 
personality.  Jesus"  whole  religious  and  moral  life  is  represented 
in  this  gospel,  in  particular,  as  lived  under  the  human  conditions 
of  dependence  and  trust  in  God  as  Father :  else  the  victory 
achieved  would  not  be  fully  t3'pical  (cf.  x.  40  for  a  passage  of  like 
tenor).  The  limitation  in  knowledge  was  only  a  part  of  the  larger 
limitation  implied  in  Incarnation,  and  in  that  subjection  of  Jesus 
to  the  ordinary  laws  of  growth — physical,  mental,  and  moral — 
which  is  affirmed  of  him  in  the  N.  T.  (Luke  ii.  40,  52  ;  Heb.  v.  8). 
Nor  is  such  a  nescience  as  is  here  attributed  to  him — of  times  and 
seasons — inconsistent  in  any  way  with  perfect  si nlessness.  There 
are  multitudes  of  things  that  are  morally  neutral,  knowledge  or 
ignorance  of  which  makes  us  neither  better  nor  worse  in  the 
moral  sense :  and  liability  to  such  ignorance  is  a  condition  of  full 
humanity. 

But  while  the  above  holds  true  of  the  text  as  it  stands  in  prac- 
tically all  our  authorities,  there  is  reason  to  doubt  whether  Jesus' 
own  words  have  not  undergone  some  change.  For  the  use  of 
'  the  Son '  absolutely,  though  found  also  in  Matt.  xi.  27  =  Luke  x. 
22,  is  unique  in  Mark  (cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  194);  and 
its  presence  here  may  be  due  to  tradition,  so  surprising  did  the 
universal  statement  that  '  no  one,'  with  the  sole  exception  of  *  the 
Father,'  knew  the  exact  date  of  the  end,  become  to  Christians 
who  had  never  known  their  Lord  in  the  flesh,  as  a  real  man.  So 
'  nor  yet  the  Son  '  might  slip  in  unconsciously,  as  the  correlative 
in  current  use  of  '  the  Father,'  originally  here  used  by  Jesus  of 
God  in  relation  to  men  generally,  not  to  himself  in  particular  (cf. 
'my  Father  and  your  Fatlier,'  John  xx.  17,  and  the  frequent 
use  of  '  the  Father'  generally  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  e.g.  xii.  26, 
xiv.  6,  xvi.  23,  25-27).  Accordingly  the  insertion  of  'nor  yet  the 
Son  '  in  a  position  of  climax,  above  the  angels,  tends  to  modify 
rather  than  enhance  an3'  difficulty  to  later  Christian  thought  in- 
herent in  the  verse  in  any  form.  For  while  still  including  him 
under  the  universal  '  no  one,'  it  yet  makes  explicit  reference  to 
Jesus'  unique  and  transcendent  relation  to  the  heavenly  Father 
himself.  Some  suspect  that  '  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven  '  also 
but  Matt,  xviii.   10  shews  its  fitness,  and  the 


ST.  MARK   13.  34.     XMk  367 

^  and  pray  :  for  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is.     //  is  as  34 
zv/ien  a  man,  sojourning  in  another  country,  having  left 

^  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  and  pray. 


motive  of  this  insertion  would  not  be  obvious.  Luke's  omission 
of  the  whole  verse  suggests  that  it  was  one  which  the  later  Apos- 
tolic age  already  found  hard  to  receive. 

33.  Take  ye  heed,  watch  ""and  pray"'.  The  disciples  '  know  not 
when  the  time  is,'  and  the  Master  himself  cannot  disclose  it.  But 
this  ignorance  has  its  spiritual  use.  It  should  be  an  incentive  to 
watchfulness  at  all  times,  and  so  to  the  sedulous  cultivation  of  the 
mind  ready  for  the  Lord's  coming  at  any  time.  The  word  used 
here  for  '  watch '  means  properly  '  keep  awake,'  and  is  used  with 
reference  to  work  as  well  as  to  prayer  (Heb.  xiii.  17  ;  Eph.  vi.  18). 
In  Matt.  xxiv.  this  verse  is  led  up  to  by  the  O.  T.  example  of  the 
unreadiness  of  men  '  in  the  days  of  Noah  '  (37  ff.).  The  very 
degree  of  unexpectedness  here  implied,  by  the  earnest  call  to 
constant  vigilance,  supports  the  probability  that  much  in  the  dis- 
course is  of  secondary  origin  :  for  after  such  strikuig signs  as  those 
described  in  14-25  it  is  psychologically  improbable  that  Christians 
would  be  other  than  in  a  constant  state  of  mental  and  moral 
vigil  during  the  interval  between  then  and  Jesus' final  'season' 
of  return  as  the  Christ  in  glory.  Hence  this  closing  saying 
strongly  confirms  the  theory  already  shown  to  be  suggested  by 
various  phenomena,  viz.  that  the  original  nucleus  of  this  discourse 
was  far  simpler  and  less  'Apocalyptic  '  in  its  outlook  and  language 
than  what  has  reached  us  through  the  medium  of  the  Church's 
tradition,  as  known  even  to  Mark — let  alone  tiie  variant  and  more 
elaborate  forms  found  in  the  other  Sj'noptics. 

34-37.  This  section,  introduced  by  the  parable-germ  on  the 
servants  left  in  charge  by  their  house-lord  during  his  absence, 
appears  in  various  forms  in  the  different  Synoptics,  particularly 
Luke  xii.  35-48,  where  the  context  contains  other  sayings  (49-53) 
parallel  to  Mark  at  an  earlier  point  in  this  discourse  (Mark  xiii.  12). 
In  that  section  of  Luke  verses  39  f.  =  Matt.  xxiv.  43  f.,  verses42-46 
=  Matt.  xxiv.  45-51  ;  verse  38  somewhat  resembles  Mark  xiii.  35  ; 
v.  41,  Mark  xiii.  37;  while  35-37  (of  which  37  is  akin  in  idea  to  43!.) 
contain  a  parable-germ  on  watching  for  a  lord  returning  from  bis 
marriage  feast.  The  total  effect  is  to  support  the  general  ideas 
expressed  in  Mark's  closing  verses,  though  we  have  not  the  means 
of  judging  which  of  the  Synoptists  best  preserves  the  original 
wording. 

34.  //  IS  as  when  a  man,  sojourning  in  another  country.  The 
construction  of  the  opening  part  of  the  verse  is  an  example  of 
Mark's  rugged  style.     Here  is  a  parable-germ  or  illustration,  like 


368  ST.  MARK  13.  35-37.     X^k 

his  house,  and  given  authority  to  his  ^  servants,  to  each 
one  his  work,   commanded  also   the   porter  to  watch. 

35  Watch  therefore  :  for  ye  know  not  when  the  lord  of  the 
house  cometh,  whether  at  even,  or  at  midnight,  or  at 

36  cockcrowing,  or  in  the  morning ;  lest  coming  suddenly 

37  he  find  you  sleeping.     And  what  I  say  unto  you  I  say 
unto  all,  Watch. 

'^  Gr.  bond-servants 


the  one  taken  from  the  fig-tree,  enforcing  the  need  of  watchful- 
ness. In  the  'lord  of  the  house'  we  are  to  see  Jesus  himself, 
leaving  the  earthly  scene  of  his  ministry,  and  later  returning  to 
earth  after  an  interval  left  undefined.  Then,  as  to  the  special 
emphasis  on  the  function  of  '  the  porter '  as  ^vatchman  for  the 
whole  household,  this  can  hardly  mean  other  than  a  differentiation 
among  Christ's  '  servants  '  or  disciples,  whereby  to  certain  is 
entrusted  the  special  duty  of  watchmen.  By  these  seem  meant 
the  Twelve  in  particular,  though  watchfulness  is  stated  in  verse  37 
to  be  the  duty  of  all  Christ's  servants  as  such. 

35.  whether  at  even,  or  at  iniduight,  or  at  coclrcrowing',  or 
in  the  morning' :  that  is,  in  any  of  the  four  watches  of  the  night, 
according  to  Roman  reckoning.  Matthew  and  Luke  use  more 
general  language  here.  But  the  latter,  in  his  report  of  an  earlier 
declaration,  represents  Jesus  as  speaking  of  the  '  second  watch  ' 
and  'the  third'  (xii.  38). 

37.  what  I  say  unto  you  I  say  unto  all,  Watch.  See  also 
Luke  xii.  ^i  for  this.  The  supreme  duty  of  w^akeful  vigilance  is 
enjoined  once  more,  and  that  as  a  duty  applicable  not  to  one  class 
but  to  all.  Matthew  then  introduces  without  any  formal  break  the 
parables  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  the  Talents,  and  the  Judgement, 
inculcating  the  same  lesson  of  the  need  of  watchfulness,  and  with 
that  the  need  of  faithfulness,  diligence,  and  service. 

There  are,  then,  two  strands  running  through  the  Discourse  as 
it  reaches  us  in  all  the  Gospels  ;  a  primary  one,  going  back  to 
Jesus  and  to  the  original  occasion  and  psychological  horizon,  best 
preserved  in  what  is  common  to  Mark  and  Luke  ;  and  a  secondary 
one,  due  to  the  later  experiences  and  outlook  of  the  Church,  and 
to  modifications  in  the  tradition  which  these  effected,  partly  by 
bringing  in  sayings  uttered  on  other  occasions  but  having  affinity 
with  this  discourse,  and  partly  by  the  influence  of  Jewish  Apoca- 
lyptic ideas  and  language.  Jesus  did  indeed  at  times  utilize 
Apocalyptic  imagery  to  a  certain  extent,  in  setting  forth  the 
transcendent  aspects  of  the  future,  e.  g.  his  return  as  the  Son  of 


ST.  MARK  14.  1.     XMk  369 

Now  after  two  days  was  the  feast  of  the  passover  and  14 

man  in  power,  the  judgement  and  separation  among  men  effected 
thereby,  the  gathering  of  God's  saints  from  all  quarters  into  the 
Messianic  kingdom  (cf.  Matt.viii.  11  f.),  in  which  the  Twelve  should 
share  his  judicial  and  royal  functions.  But  he  used  them  with 
sovereign  poetic  freedom,  and  in  far  less  wholesale  manner  than 
marks  the  discourse  as  it  stands.  Nor  can  he  have  departed  so 
far  from  the  lines  of  its  occasion  and  opening,  and  of  its  close, 
with  its  emphatic  warning  touching  the  incakuJable  suddenness  of 
his  return  (cf.  end  of  the  Appended  Note  after  xiii.  4).  For  if 
the  signs  specified  in  14-27  must  first  appear  before  that  return, 
then  the  urgent  need  of  '  watching '  would  date  only  from  then 
and  not  before.  Further,  the  detailed  imagery,  which  is  in  any 
case  meant  in  a  more  literal  sense  than  characterizes  Jesus' 
wonted  use  of  figurative  language,  tells  against  its  own  authen- 
ticity. Thus  'we  are  compelled  to  choose  between  the  declara- 
tions which  exhibit  the  Kingdom  as  imminent,  without  any  other 
sign  than  the  Gospel  itself  (and  its  issues  in  the  experiences  of 
the  Apostles  described  in  vv.  5f.,  9a,  11-13),  'and  those  which 
exhibit  it  as  delayed  till  after  a  series  of  events  which  were  to  be 
accomplished  before  it  was  realized.  The  choice  of  the  historian 
cannot  be  doubtful :  the  declarations  of  the  first  series  are  in 
keeping  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  ;  these  of  the  second  series 
are  an  apologetic  explanation  of  the  delay,  which,  notwithstanding 
the  declarations  of  the  Saviour  himself,  the  Parousia  experienced' 
(Loisy,  £vangiles  synoptiques^  ii.  405).  It  is  very  doubtful,  how- 
ever, whether  this  really  implies  the  use  cf  any  such  Jewish 
'Little  Apocalypse,'  in  written  form,  as  many  scholars  assume  to 
have  been  among  the  materials  used  by  tradition  or  by  our 
Synoptics  in  such  expansion  of  the  original  nucleus  as  is  recog- 
nizable in  the  Discourse  as  a  whole  (see  Allen,  pp.  163-7). 
Gradual  development  of  the  historical  nucleus  by  the  activity  of 
Christian  prophecy,  using  various  Jewish  Apocal3'ptic  materials, 
is  psychologically  more  likely. 

xiv.  1-2.  Schemes  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Authorities  {c{.  Matt.  xxvi. 
1-5  ;   Luke  xxii.  1-2). 

1.  after  two  days.  There  are  several  sources  of  confusion  for 
us  in  dealing  with  the  Paschal  calculations  in  this  chapter  and  in 
the  sentence  of  which  this  phrase  forms  part.     There  is 

(i)  the  difference  between  the  Jewish  and  Roman  (or  Western^ 
reckoning  of  a  day,  which  in  the  former  case  began  at  sunset,  in 
the  latter  at  dawn.  Hence  the  Wednesday,  here  Nisan  the  thir- 
teenth, remained  such  to  the  Romans  (as  to  us)  even  after  sunset  ; 
while  to  the  Jews  it  became  at  sunset  Nisan  14,  until  sunset 
on  Thursday,  when  in  turn   Nisan   15  began,  and  therewith  the 

Bb 


370  ST.  MARK  14.  i.     X^k 

the  unleavened  bread :    and  the  chief  priests  and  the 

Paschal  feast  or  season.  Similarly  the  Days  of  Unleavened  Bread 
(lasting  seven  days,  cf.  Acts  xii.  2),  a  stage  of  the  whole  Paschal 
Feast  which  began  strictly  with  its  second  day,  commenced  in  fact 
about  midday  on  Nisan  14  (see  v.  12),  i.e.  ere  the  fourteenth  passed 
over  to  the  fifteenth— but  for  the  Romans  remained  the  fourteenth 
until  after  the  Passover  meal  (^sacrificed  already  on  the  fourteenth) 
was  eaten  before  midnight. 

(2)  A  second  source  of  ambiguity  is  the  varying  senses  of  '  the 
Passover'  and  'the  Unleavened  Bread'  {The  Asyiues,  in  the 
plural),  dealt  with  in  the  next  note. 

(3)  The  '  inclusive  '  and  '  exclusive  '  reckoning  of  time.  The 
former  is  the  regular  Jewish  method,  seen  in  '  after  three  days  '  in 
viii.  31,  ix.  31,  X.  34,  meant  by  Mark  in  the  sense  of  'on  the  third 
day,'  i.  e.  after  a  whole  day  and  parts  of  two  days  on  either  side 
of  it.  This,  however,  does  not  equally  hold  good  for  Romans,  or 
^vhe^e  a  Jewish  writer  like  Mark  is  writing  freel3'  for  Graeco- 
Roman  readers  as  an  historian,  and  not  as  quoting  a  phrase 
already  fixed  in  Jewish  tradition,  like  the  above.  Accordingly 
'  after  two  days'  may  here  mean  either  'on  the  day  following '  or 
'  after  two  full  days.'  Reckoning  back  from  Friday,  Nisan  fifteen, 
this  would  make  the  day  now  in  question  either  Nisan  thirteen, 
Wednesday  of  Passion  Week,  or  on  the  other  hand  Nisan  twelve, 
the  Tuesday.  The  former  view  is  preferable,  and  answers  to  '  the 
fourth  day '  of  the  week,  later  kept  ^^like  the  Friday)  by  the 
ancient  Church  as  a  fast  in  memory  of  the  fatal '  council '  (cf.  Matt. 
V.  3)  of  Jesus'  foes  :  see  Didachc,  8,  Apost.  Const,  v.  15. 

the  pant  of  the  passover.  The  word  *  Passover  '  means 
sometimes  the  paschal  Lamb  1  as  in  Mark  xiv.  12,  Luke  xxii.  7', 
which  was  killed  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan  and  eaten  at  sunset 
(as  Nisan  fifteen  was  beginningX  in  memory  of  the  day  when  the 
Israelites  were  bidden  prepare  to  quit  Egypt  (Exod.  xii  ;  Num. 
ix  ;  Deut.  xvi)  ;  sometimes  the  appoincnients  of  the  paschal  supper, 
as  in  Mark  xiv.  16;  Luke  xxii.  8,  13  ;  sometimes  \.\\e  paschal  festival, 
the  memorial  feast  lasting  from  the  fourteenth  to  the  twenty-first 
of  Nisan,  as  here  and  in  Matt.  xxvi.  2  ;  Luke  ii.  41,  xxii.  i  ;  John 
ii.  13,  23,  vi.  4,  &C. 

and  (of)  tlie  tuileavened  bread.  The  term  rendered  '  un- 
leavened liread'  is  used  sometimes  of  the  unfermented  loaves 
which  the  Israelites  ate  for  seven  daj's  in  commemoration  of  their 
departure  from  Egypt  Exod.  xxiii.  15;  Lev.  xxiii.  6),  as  in  Matt. 
xxvi.  17  ;  Mark  xiv.  12  ;  Luke  xxii.  i,  7  ;  sometimes  o(  the  paschal 
festival  itseU,  as  here.  The  peculiarity  of  the  present  passage  is 
that  the  Festival  is  designated  by  the  double  title,  in  terms  both  of 
the  Passover  proper  and  of  the  seven  days  of  Unleavened  Bread, 
which    followed.     This   whole    commemorative    festival    was   an 


ST.  MARK  14.  2.     XMk  371 

scribes  sought  how  they  might  take  him  with  subtilty, 
and  kill  him  :  for  they  said,  Not  during  the  feast,  lest 
haply  there  shall  be  a  tumult  of  the  people. 


eight  days"  feast,  beginning  with  a  da}'  of  preparation  (here  ignored) 
for  the  paschal  meal,  and  continuing  through  seven  days  of 
restriction  to  unfermented  bread. 

sought  how  they  mig-ht  take  him  with  subtilty:  /;/. 
'  were  seeking,'  &c.  Matthew  specifies  '  the  chief  priests  and  the 
ciders  of  the  people  '  (xxvi.  3),  and  clearly  contemplates  a  full 
meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  house  ofCaiaphas,  the  High-priest. 
But  this  is  not  necessarily  implied  by  Mark  here,  any  more  than 
inverse  10,  where  the  leading  groups  of  Jesus'  foes,  'the  chief 
l)riests  and  the  scribes,'  are  in  question. 

2.  Not  diiring-  the  feast.  Their  plan  was  to  keep  clear  of  the 
Passover  feast  in  any  action  they  might  take,  for  fear  of  popular 
excitement.  Hence  they  must  either  act  at  once,  as  the  passover 
began  in  a  day  or  two,  or  delay  till  the  seven  days  of  the  feast 
were  over. 

lest  haply  there  shall  be  a  tumult.  This  was  the  reason  for 
seeking  to  resort  to  some  cunning  trick,  and  particularly  for  their 
intention  to  keep  clear  of  the  feast.  1  hey  knew  that  the  mass  of 
the  people,  largely  from  Galilee,  though  perplexed  about  Jesus, 
regarded  him  as  '  a  prophet'  at  least ;  and  they  dreaded  to  raise 
their  opposition.  Once  let  the  feast  be  over,  and  these  provincial 
sympathizers  scattered  to  their  homes,  the  danger  of  a  tumult 
would  be  less.  This  was  their  polic}'  prior  to  the  '  new  fact '  now 
to  be  described,  viz.  that  there  was  a  traitor  in  Jesus'  own  inner 
circle,  through  whose  aid  all  could  be  made  simpler  and  safer. 

xiv.  3-9.  The  Anointing  at  Bethany  (cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  6-13  ;  John 
xii.  2-8).  The  narratives  in  Mark,  Matthew,  and  John,  appear 
clearly  to  refer  to  one  and  the  same  occasion.  There  is  difference 
indeed  in  the  chronological  connexion,  John  placing  the  supper 
six  days  before  the  Passover,  and  the  Synoptics  introducing  it 
along  with  circumstances  belonging  to  a  period  several  days  later. 
Yet  the  difference  in  position  counts  for  little.  In  Luke's  Gospel 
also  we  have  a  narrative  of  an  anointing  at  the  hands  of  a  woman 
(Luke  vii.  36-5o^,  which  has  a  general  resemblance  to  this,  and 
in  which  the  host  bears,  as  here,  the  name  of  Simon.  But  the 
differences  between  Luke's  story  and  this  one  are  considerable. 
The  incident  in  Luke  is  introduced  at  a  much  earlier  point  and 
seems  to  belong  to  an  earlier  period  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  In 
Luke,  too,  the  chief  actor  is  described  as  '  a  woman  which  was  in 
the  city,  a  sinner;'  in  the  first  two  Gospels  she  is  designated 
simply  •  a  woman  ; '  and  in  the   Fourth  Gospel  she  is  '  Mary,  the 


372  ST.  MARK  14.  3.     X^k 

3  And  while  he  was  in  Bethany  in  the  house  of  Simon 
the  leper,  as  he  sat  at  meat,  there  came  a  woman  having 
a  an  alabaster  cruse  of  ointment  of  ^  spikenard  very  costly  ; 

*  Or,  a  flask 

^  Gr.  pLstic  nani,  pistic  being  perhaps  a  local  name.  Others  take 
it  to  mean  genuiizc  ;  others  liquid, 

sister  of  Martha  and  Lazarus.'  It  is  far  more  likely,  then,  that  any 
point  of  contact  between  Luke's  narrative  and  that  of  Mark  in 
regard  to  Jesus'  stay  at  Bethany  is  to  be  found  in  the  beautiful 
picture  of  Jesus'  welcome  by  Martha  and  Mary  (x.  31-42),  which 
may  even  have  taken  place  early  in  this  visit,  as  it  is  undated  in 
Luke. 

The  present  incident  fits  psychologically  into  its  place  in  Mark, 
in  virtue  of  the  foreboding  tone  of  Jesus'  words  in  verse  8.  This 
would  be  quite  out  of  keeping  with  his  spirit  at  the  time  of  his 
Triumphal  entry  (as  John's  narrative  would  imply),  whereas  it 
follows  naturally  on  his  recent  experiences  in  Jerusalem,  and  the 
resulting  situation  as  just  described  in  vv.  if.  Thus,  the  incident 
probably  took  place  on  the  evening  of  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  of 
Passion  Week.  Further,  if  as  seems  likely,  Mark  and  especially 
Matthew  intend  us  to  understand  that  the  incident  precipitated 
Judas's  decision  to  deliver  his  Master  into  the  hands  of  his  foes — 
for  whatever  motive — this  connexion  favours  that  date.  For  it 
explains  how  the  authorities  were  able,  instead  of  having  to  tvati 
till  after  the  Feast,  to  arrest  Jesus  before  it  without  the  danger  of 
tumult,  by  a  quick  and  stealthy  coufi  dc  tnain  facilitated  by  one  of 
his  own  followers. 

3.  while  he  was  in  Bethany.  Presumably  soon  after  the 
moment  indicated  in  verse  i  f,  ;  see  the  note  above. 

Simon  the  leper.  This  concrete  detail,  on  a  point  of  no  im- 
portance to  the  reader,  is  only  one  of  innumerable  touches  of 
circumstantial  fulness  and  precision  which  characterize  tiie  story 
of  Passion  Week  in  Mark  :  Luke  too  has  his  own,  due  to  his  special 
source,  especially  as  regards  the  Last  Supper.  All  connected  with 
the  great  crisis  would  live  vividly  in  apostolic  memories.  Simon 
was  a  common  Jewish  name.  This  Simon  is  distinguished  from 
others  by  the  title  'the  leper,'  he  being  perhaps  one  of  those 
healed  by  Jesus. 

a  woman.  The  Synoptists  do  not  give  her  name.  Probably 
it  was  Mary  of  Bethany,  whose  name  does  not  occur  in  Mark. 
In  John's  account  Martha  of  Bethany  serves  and  Mary  anoints  the 
Master  (cf.  Luke  x.  38-42). 

an  alabaster  cruse  :  or  '  a  flask,'  as  in  the  margin  of  the  R.V. 
Literally  it  is  '  an  alabaster,'  that  name  being  given  to  vases  used 


ST.  MARK  14.  4.     XMk  373 

a7id  she  brake  the  cruse,  and  poured  it  over  his  head. 
But  there  were  some  that  had  indignation  among  them-  4 
seh'es,  sayi?ig,  To  what  purpose  hath  this  waste  of  the 

for  the  holding  of  unguents,  because  they  were  often  made  of  that 
material.  The  alabaster  of  the  ancients  was  different  from  what 
is  known  as  alabaster  among  us  (not  a  sulphate  of  lime,  but 
a  stalagmitic  carbonate).  It  was  supposed  to  preserve  the  aroma 
of  the  perfumes. 

of  spikenard  :  lit.  '  oi ptsiic  nard,'  a  doubtful  phrase,  probably 
meaning  genuine,  pure  nard,  in  contrast  with  pseudo-nard,  an 
adulterated  article  known  to  have  been  sold  (Pliny,  Nat.  Hist.  xii. 
12).  Thus  the  adjective  *  pistic'  is  applied  to  a  woman,  as  '  faith- 
ful '  or  '  trustworthy,'  by  a  second-century  writer,  Artemidorus. 
This  'nard'  ^vas  the  essential  oil  of  an  Indian  plant,  a  species  of 
Valerian,  known  among  the  Arabs  as  the  Indiatt  Spike,  and  grown, 
according  to  Sir  William  Jones,  '  in  the  most  remote  and  hilly 
parts  of  India,  such  as  Nepal,  Morang,  and  Butan,  near  which 
Ptolemy  fixes  its  native  soil'  {Works,  v.  p.  44).  In  the  O.T.  it  is 
mentioned  only  in  the  Song  of  .Songs  (i.  12,  iv.  13,  14),  in  the  N.T. 
only  here. 

very  costly.  It  was  perhaps  the  costliest  of  all  the  fragrant 
oils  of  the  ancient  world.  Horace  promises  Vergil  a  whole  cask 
of  wine  for  a  small  onyx  of  nard  {Odes,  iv.  12). 

brake  the  cruse  :  by  breaking  off  the  narrow  neck  of  the  flask 
itself,  so  that  the  entire  contents  might  be  spent  more  freely  on  the 
Master,  with  the  lavish  abandon  of  love. 

over  his  head.  In  John's  narrative  Mary  anoints  the  feet  of 
Jesus.  The  anointing  of  the  head  was  a  customary  act  of  attention 
on  the  part  of  a  host  to  his  guest  (cf.  Ps.  xxiii.  5 ;  Luke  vii.  46)  or 
of  goodwill  to  visitors.  To  anoint  the  feet  was  an  unusual  act, 
a  token  of  deepest  humility  and  veneration  (see  Luke  vii.  46). 

4.  there  were  some.  Matthew  says  they  were  'the  disciples.' 
John  speaks  of  Judas  as  the  murmurer  (xii.  4),  and  the  way  in 
which  Mark  makes  Judas's  decision  to  betray  Jesus  to  the  Jewish 
authorities  follow  immediatel3'  on  this  incident  (verse  10)  suggests 
that  he  had  taken  umbrage  at  Jesus'  defence  of  the  woman's  action, 
including  the  tenor  of  his  reply. 

had  indignation  among'  themselves  :  the  same  strong  term 
as  was  used  of  the  '  indignation  '  with  which  Jesus  himself  resented 
the  interference  of  the  disciples  with  those  who  brought  little 
children  to  him  (x.  14).  The  indignation  of  these  'some'  did  not 
express  itself  in  any  formal  or  public  manner.  It  confined  itself 
to  grumblings  that  went  from  mouth  to  mouth  among  themselves. 

this  waste.  The  judgement  of  a  calculating  utilitarian  spirit, 
blind  to  the  higher  values  of  love. 


374  ST.  MARK  14.  5-8.     XMk 

6  ointment  been  made?     For  this  ointment  might  have 
been  sold  for  above  three   hundred  pence,  and  given  to 

6  the  poor.     And  they  murmured  againist  her.     But  Jesus 
said,    Let   her  alone ;    why  trouble  ye  her  ?    she  hath 

7  wrought  a  good  work  on   me.     For  ye  have  the  poor 
always  with  you,  and  whensoever  ye  will  ye  can  do  them 

8  good  :  but  me  ye  have  not  always.     She  hath  done  what 


5.  three  liimdred  pence.  That  is,  three  hundred  denarii  or 
shillings,  from  £\o  to  ^12  in  nominal  value,  but  much  more  in 
actual  purchasing  power.  The  vase,  John  tells  us,  contained 
'a  pound'  (Roman)  of  the  nard. 

given  to  the  poor.  As  we  may  infer  from  Mark  vi.  37,  the 
sum  would  have  fed  some  thousands. 

murmured  against  her :  rather  '  vented  their  feeling,'  the 
word  used  in  i.  43.  Their  indignation,  which  at  first  had  been 
but  muttered,  finally  vented  itself  on  the  woman  herself. 

a  good  work:  rather  'a  beautiful  deed.'  It  was  a  deed  of 
moral  beauty,  made  so  by  the  spirit  of  ungrudging  love  that 
prompted  it. 

*J.  For  ye  have  the  poor  always  with  yon.  Kindness  to  the 
poor  is  a  primary  duty.  Yet  there  are  timely  acts  to  which  even 
it  may  give  place  for  a  while.  When  such  a  conflict  of  duties 
arises,  it  is  to  be  settled  by  the  principle  that  what  can  be  done 
only  at  a  given  moment,  or  not  at  all,  shall  have  precedence  over 
what  can  be  done  at  any  time.  Love  has  its  own  insight,  and 
makes  its  way  by  a  sure  instinct  through  all  difficulties  of  com- 
peting duties,  to  the  fitness  of  things.  The  clause  '  and  when- 
soever ye  will,  ye  can  do  them  good,'  is  peculiar  to  Mark. 

me  ye  have  not  always.  A  simple  but  pathetic  reminder  of 
what  he  had  hinted  to  his  disciples  time  and  again — the  fact  that 
he  was  to  die.  The  special  fitness  of  the  woman's  act,  therefore, 
was  seen  in  its  timeliness. 

8.  She  hath  done  what  she  could.  To  what  end  ?  Perhaps 
to  express  what  she  could  not  put  into  words,  namely,  her 
boundless  sympathy  with  her  great  Master  in  the  Cup  which  her 
woman's  loving  observation  of  his  mood  revcnled  to  her  that  he 
was  now  drinking,  tiie  cup  of  disappointment  in  his  own  People 
and  his  rejection  by  their  leaders.  If  so,  it  was  a  wonderfully 
delicate  and  tactful  way  of  attaining  her  aim,  and  one  which 
seems  to  have  moved  Jesus  profoundly.  There  was  that  in  the 
passionate  devotion  and  sympathetic  insight  of  woman's  love 
which  formed  a  special  bond  between  Jesus  and  true  womanhood  : 


ST.  MARK  14.  9.     XMk  375 

she  could  :  she  hath  anointed  my  body  aforehand  for  the 
burying.     And  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Wheresoever  the  9 
gospel  shall  be  preached  throughout  the  whole  world, 


compare    the   devotion    of   women    disciples    to    the    bitter   end, 
XV.  40 f.,  47,  xvi.  I  f. 

The  words  which  follow  (8^,  9)  are  to  be  taken  as  the  poetry  of 
emotion,  uttered  in  a  mood  of  high  exaltation  and  mystic  vision, 
which  the  woman's  spiritual!}'  '  beautiful '  deed  evoked  in  him. 
The  case  was  similar  to  that  on  the  return  of  the  Seventy  with 
their  story,  which  caused  him  'to  exult  in  the  Holy  Spirit,'  and 
then  utter  the  sublimest  expression  of  the  inmost  meaning  of  the 
Gospel  (alike  as  regards  its  true  recipients  and  his  own  unique 
fiinction  in  it,  'entrusted'  to  him  b}'  His  Father)  which  the 
Synoptic  tradition  has  preserved  (Luke  x.  17,  21  ff. ;  cf.  Matt. 
xi.  25  ff.). 

anointed  my  body  aforebaiid.  In  the  case  of  death  it  was 
customary  among  the  Jews,  after  washing  the  body,  to  apply 
spices  and  unguents. 

for  the  burying :  lit.  '  with  a  view  to  its  preparation  for  burial.' 
So  in  Matthew,  'she  did  it  to  prepare  me  for  burial'  (xxvi.  12). 
John  gives  it  somewhat  differentl}',  '  Suffer  her  to  keep  it  against 
the  day  of  my  burying'  (xii.  7).  Though  this  particular  aspect  of 
the  act  can  hardly  have  occurred  to  the  woman  herself,  she  may 
have  done  what  she  did  with  a  conscious  anticipation  of  his  death, 
i.e.  that  it  was  her  last  chance  of  expressing  her  love  and 
reverence.  Love's  insight  is  quick:  the  woman  was  a  disciple  ; 
and  if  she  was  Mary  of  Bethany  (cf.  Luke  x.  39),  we  can  well 
imagine  that  to  her  woman's  love  the  words  Jesus  had  spoken 
regarding  his  Passion  may  have  had  a  meaning  which  they  had 
not  even  to  the  Twelve.  This  intuition  Jesus  met  with  grateful 
warmth  of  feeling,  and  put  upon  her  act  a  fulness  of  meaning  and 
a  value  beyond  what  she  herself  had  thought  of. 

9.  Wheresoever  the  gospel  shall  be  preached.  As  wide  as 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  so  wide  should  be  the  fame  of  this 
deed  ;  for  it  was  a  deed  most  typical  of  the  Gospel,  i;i  the  uncal- 
culating  devotion  of  its  love  (cf.  xii.  29  ff.,  x.  21),  and  should  not 
fail  of  its  record  as  part  of  the  Gospel  story. 

througrhout  the  whole  world.  It  is  doubtful  whether  these 
words  were  actually  uttered  by  Jesus.  They  may  well  be  an  un- 
conscious addition  made  to  the  phrasing  of  the  saying,  in  terms 
of  the  Church's  experience  and  language,  as  the  Apostolic  Age 
saw  the  Gospel's  spread  throughout  the  Roman  world  :  compare 
xiii.  10.  Jesus  contemplated  the  Kingdom's  coming  in  power 
quite  soon  (ix.  i,  xiv.  62). 


376  ST.  MARK  14.  lo.     X^k 

that  also  which  this  woman  hath  done  shall  be  spoken 
of  for  a  memorial  of  her. 
10      And  Judas  Iscariot,  ^he  that  was  one  of  the  twelve, 
went  away  unto  the  chief  priests,  that  he  might  deliver 

*  Gr.  the  one  of  the  twelve 

for  a  memorial  of  her.  To  make  her  remembered  with 
honour  among  men. 

xiv.  lo,  II.  Compact  bctivecii  Jiidas  and  the  Chief  Priests  (cf. 
Matt.  xxvi.  14-16;   Luke  xxii.  3-6). 

10.  Jiidas  Iscariot.  In  Mark's  gospel  Judas  is  mentioned 
only  in  the  list  of  the  apostles  (iii.  19)  and  twice  in  this  chapter 
(10,43). 

one  of  the  twelve:  lit.  'the  one  of  the  twelve,'  possibly 
emphatic,  in  the  sense  of  'one  of  the  twelve,  as  he  was  :'  cf. 
Luke's  '  being  of  the  number  of  the  Twelve.'  A  designation  of 
tragic  import,  marking  him  out  as  such  and  sharpening  the  idea 
of  his  guilt. 

Recently  it  has  been  argued  (e.  g.  by  Dr.  A.  Wright  in  The 
Journal  of  Thcol.  Studies,  xviii.  32  f.)  that  'the  one'  here  means, 
as  it  can  in  modern  Greek  and  perhaps  also  in  the  ancient  papyri 
(witnesses  to  the  colloquial  rather  than  literary'  language  of  this 
period),  'the  first'  or  'the  chief  of  the  Twelve.  Such  Judas 
might  be,  as  steward  of  the  common  purse  of  Jesus  and  his  inner 
circle  (cf.  John  xii.  6).  But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  such  a 
description  would  be  introduced  thus  suddenly  in  Mark's  narra- 
tive, with  no  hint  that  it  needed  explanation,  as  it  certainl}'  would 
to  his  readers,  with  their  views  of  Peter  as  holding  the  first  place 
at  this  time.  Further,  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  xx.  i  ff.,  the  phrase 
occurs  of  several  archangels,  each  being  called  '(the)  one  of  the 
holy  angels ' — a  complete  parallel. 

went  away  unto  the  chief  priests:  i.  e.  the  most  influential 
persons  in  matters  of  this  kind.  From  Luke  we  hear  that  the 
'  captains,' the  heads  of  the  temple  police — themselves  priests — 
were  also  consulted  (xxii.  4). 

that  he  mig'ht  deliver  him.  What  is  the  explanation  of 
this  deed  of  treachery?  Some  suppose  that  all  he  had  in  view 
was  to  force  the  hand  of  Jesus  to  the  establishment  of  his  Mes- 
sianic kingdom,  by  bringing  to  bear  on  him  the  compulsion  of 
a  popul.ir  rising  on  iiis  behalf  to  rescue  him  from  the  authorities. 
But  of  this  there  is  no  hint  in  the  narratix-cs  (unless  it  be  in  Matt, 
xxvii.  3V  Others  think  he  was  prompted  by  wounded  ambition, 
or  by  resentment  caused  by  the  rebuke  giveti  him  in  particular 
(as  he  felt)  at  the  supper  in  Bethany  (John  xii.  6-g).     The  latter 


ST.  MARK  14.  I  r.     XMk  377 

him  unto  them.     And  they,  when  they  heard  it,   were  ii 
glad,  and  promised  to  give  him  money.     And  he  sought 
how  he  might  conveniently  deliver  him  unto  them. 


motive  probably  entered  in  (see  verse  4  and  note),  but  only  as  the 
last  impetus  given  to  an  alienation  of  deeper  and  long-standing 
origin  between  him  and  his  master,  most  likely  connected  with  the 
latter's  growing  deviation  from  Judas's  ideal  of  Messiahship,  and 
now  passing  into  bitter  chagrin  and  hostility.  But  the  Gospels 
themselves  suggest  only  some  Satanic  temptation  (Luke  xxiii.  3  ; 
John  xiii.  2,  27)  and  avarice.  The  latter  is  peculiar  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel  (with  some  inferential  support  from  Matt.  xxvi.  i5\  which 
states  that,  having  been  chosen  to  manage  the  money  aflfairs  of 
Jesus  and  the  Twelve,  he  abused  his  trust  (John  xii.  6).  Thus  it 
is  implied  that  it  was  for  this  reason  that  he  finally  betra^'ed  his 
Master,  the  fatal  vice  of  greed,  in  him  from  the  beginning,  having 
been  allowed  to  feed  on  the  opportunities  offered  it,  until  at  last  it 
blinded  him  to  every  other  consideration.  Against  this  stands  the 
absence  of  any  hint  of  it  in  the  Synoptic  tradition.  So  the  matter 
remains  largely  a  mystery,  unless  we  can  adopt  Allen's  view  of 
the  meaning  of  Iscariot  (see  iii.  19)  as  confirming  the  first 
hypothesis. 

11.  they,  when  they  heard  it,  were  ^lad.  They  needed  no 
longer  either  to  scheme  or  to  think  of  delay ;  the  means  of  giving 
effect  to  their  fell  purpose  were  as  good  as  put  into  their  hands. 

proinisecl  to  give  him  money.  The  exact  sum  is  recorded 
neither  by  Mark  nor  by  Luke.  Matthew,  however,  who  also 
represents  Judas  as  asking  how  much  the  authorities  would  give 
him,  mentions  that  it  was  thirty  pieces  of  silver  (xxvi.  15).  The 
whole  sum,  however,  would  amount  to  less  than  £i,,  a  small  sum 
truly  for  such  a  service  and  hardly  such  as  to  content  any  one, 
especially  an  avaricious  man.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  sum 
mentioned  in  Zechariah  xi.  12,  a  point  which  Matthew  xxvii.  9  f . 
emphasizes  as  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy  :  so  that  this  may  be  the 
real  origin  of  the  sum  there  named. 

he  sought  how  he  might  conveniently  deliver  him :  rather 
•  he  began  to  seek,'  &c.  Luke  adds  :  '  in  the  absence  of  the 
multitude,'  or,  'without  tumult'  ixxii.  6\  The  risk  of  a  rising 
on  the  part  of  the  people  was  what  the  chief  priests  were  seeking 
to  avoid.  Judas  went  back  to  those  he  had  left  for  the  time,  and 
watched  his  chance  to  devise  the  means  and  find  the  occasion,  as 
Jesus'  plans  for  his  movements  developed.  What  favoured  Judas's 
purpose,  viz.  Jesus'  presence  in  Jerusalem  by  night,  is  stated  in 
what  follows;  but  it  is  not  made  clear  just  when  Judas  visited  the 
authorities  (yet  see  note  on  verse  13). 


I. 


378  ST.  MARK  14.  12.     XMk 

And  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  when  they 
sacrificed  the  passover,  his  disciples  say  unto  him,  Where 


xiv.  12-16.  Preparations  for  the  Last  Supper  (cf.  Matt.  xxvi. 
17-19;  Luke  xxii.  7-13). 

12.  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread.  Luke  calls  it 
simply  'the  day  of  unleavened  bread'  (xxii.  7).  It  means  the  day 
when  leaven  was  removed  and  the  eating  of  unleavened  bread 
began.  This  expression  occurs  also  in  Joseph  us  (Jewish  IVar)  : 
'  When  the  day  of  the  Unleavened  Bread,  the  fourteenth  of  the 
month  (Nisan)  .  .  .  had  come.'  Matthew,  a  gospel  written  mainly 
for  Jewish  readers,  supports  this  phrase  of  Mark's  as  being  true 
enough  to  popular  Jewish  language  at  the  time  (though  later  it 
seems  to  have  passed  out  of  use\  the  first  day  of  the  Passover 
season  being  regarded  as  preparatory  to  the  Feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  which  began  strictly  with  the  fifteenth  (after  sunset  on  the 
fourtei  nth).  Josephus,  however,  both  by  calling  the  fourteenth  '  the 
day  of  the  Unleavened  Bread'  and  by  writing  '  we  keep  a  feast 
for  eight  days  which  is  called  [the  Feast"|  of  Unleavened  Bread' 
(Antiquities,  ii.  15.  i),  virtually  supports  Mark's  use  of  the  phrase 
'  the  Jiist  day  of  the  Unleavened  Bread,'  which  has  been  chal- 
lenged by  modern  Jewish  scholars  as  a  solecism,  contrary  to 
Rabbinic  usage  (see  Allen's  Additional  Note  on  xiv.  12  for  further 
evidence  from  Josephus). 

All  three  Synoptics  mean  the  same  day,  the  fourteenth  Nisan, 
which  began  after  sunset  on  the  thirteenth.  In  post-Exilic  times 
it  was  customary  for  the  head  of  the  family  to  search  the  house 
with  a  lighted  candle  on  the  evening  of  the  thirteenth  Nisan,  in 
quest  of  leaven.  On  the  fourteenth  the  eating  of  leavened 
bread  was  suspended,  the  abstention  beginning  before  noon. 
Allen  suspects  an  error  lying  behind  Mark's  Greek,  for  an  Aramaic 
original  'on  the  day  before  the  Unleavened  Bread.' 

when  they  sacrificed  the  pa,ssover.  This  further  definition 
is  found  also  in  Luke,  but  not  in  Matthew,  which  as  a  Gospel  for 
Jewish  readers  did  not  feel  needful  the  explanation  which  Mark 
added  for  his  Gentile  readers.  The  paschal  lamb  was  killed  in 
the  court  of  tlie  priests,  with  considerable  ceremonial.  1'lieeating 
took  place  after  sunset.  This  year,  as  the  Crucifixion  was  mani- 
festly on  Friday,  Mark  implies  that  it  took  place  on  Thursday. 

Where  wilt  thoii  that  we  go  and  make  ready  ?  The  pre- 
parations that  had  to  be  made  at  the  house  were  elaborate, 
embracing  the  providing  of  place,  unleavened  cakes,  wine,  water, 
the  bitter  herbs,  Ihe  sauce  called  C/iaroset/i,  the  setting  out  of  the 
table,  &c.,  apart  from  the  lamb,  brought  at  the  last  stage  from  the 
temple  to  be  roasted.  Thus  this  question  does  not  in  itself  neces- 
sarily imply  that  the  Passover  was  to  be  eaten  the  same  evening, 


ST.  MARK  14.  12.     XMk  379 

wilt  thou  that  we  go  and  make  ready  that  thou  mayest 

as  the  opening  words  of  the  verse  obviously  do.  Indeed  Monte- 
fiore  says,  touching  the  view  that  such  was  the  case  (as  the 
Synoptics  state,  though  some  think  it  does  not  suit  all  they  relate), 
'  the  odd  thing  is  perhaps  that  no  arrangement  was  made  before 
Thursday  morning.'  But  Jesus  had  good  reason  to  allow  Judas 
as  short  notice  as  possible  of  his  exact  plans.  This  perhaps  explains 
the  very  form  of  Jesus'directions  ;  while  only  the  fact  that  it  was 
the  Paschal  meal  warranted  his  arranging  to  be  in  Jerusalem  after 
dark. 

The  directions  given  by  Jesus  are  often  thought  to  point  to 
supernatural  foresight.  But  of  this  there  is  no  trace  in  Matthew, 
which  may  here  follow  the  Apostolic  tradition  as  known  to  him 
apart  from  Mark.  According  to  Matt.  xxvi.  i8,  Jesus  replies,  'Go 
into  the  city  to  so  and  so  (naming  the  man  to  the  two  disciples, 
Peter  and  John,  as  Luke  tells  us\  and  saj'  to  him,  "  The  Teacher 
saith  My  time  is  at  hand  ;  at  thy  house  I  keep  the  passover  with 
my  disciples."  '  Luke  adopts  Mark's  narrative  here,  after  an 
independent  opening  from  his  special  source  (vv.  7f.) — which 
throughout  the  whole  Passion  narrative  makes  its  presence  very 
evident,  and  may  have  had  no  account  of  the  details  special  to 
Mark,  as  compared  with  Matthew.  These  special  features  pro- 
bably describe  the  actual  circumstances  imder  which  the  disciples 
found  the  house  Jesus  had  in  mind.  It  is  most  likely  that  they 
were  in  fact  foreknown  by  Jesus,  for  the  simple  reason  that  he 
had  so  arranged  with  the  master  of  the  house,  a  local  disciple,  in 
order  to  keep  his  next  movements  unknown  to  Judas,  whom  Jesus 
suspected  but  whose  purpose  was  hidden  from  his  fellow-disciples. 
Thus  they  might  unconsciously  have  given  away  their  Master's 
safety,  had  they  known  where  exactly  they  were  going  before 
they  started  (hence  Matthew's  idea  that  Jesus  had  named  his 
future  host  is  probably  inaccurate).  By  the  time  they  returned, 
it  might  be  too  late  for  Judas  to  steal  away  and  give  the  precious 
information  where  in  Jerusalem  Jesus  was  to  be  found  that  even- 
ing, and  so  enable  his  foes  to  take  measures  to  seize  him  with 
little  or  no  public  notice.  As  it  was,  Judas  was  in  fact  able  to 
warn  them  of  Jesus'  whereabouts  onlj'  at  the  eleventh  hour,  pos- 
sibly by  leaving  the  very  board  of  his  Master  (as  John's  Gospel 
implies)  on  some  pretext. 

Mark  does  not  say  that  the  matter  had  not  been  thus  arranged  : 
nor  are  we  free  to  infer  it  from  his  silence  ;  for  in  fact  the  con- 
text in  which  he  places  the  incident  may  well  be  meant  to  suggest 
that  Jesus  did  not  deliberately  play  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies, 
but  rather  tried  to  save  Judas  from  executing  his  purpose.  On 
the  other  hand  the  very  vivid  details  which  Mark  supplies  may 
point  to  his  special  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  from  personal 


38o  ST.  MARK  14.  13-15.     X^k 

13  eat  the  passover?  And  he  sendeth  two  of  his  disciples, 
and  saith  unto  them,  Go  into  the  city,  and  there  shall 
meet  you  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water  :  follow  him ; 

14  and  wheresoever  he  shall  enter  in,  say  to  the  goodman 
of  the  house,  The  » Master  saith,  Where  is  my  guest- 
chamber,    where    I    shall    eat    the    passover    with    my 

15  disciples  ?     And  he  will  himself  shew  you  a  large  upper 

*  Or,  Teacher 

connexion  with  tlie  household  in  question  (see  note  on  51).     He 
may  even  have  been  the  man  carrying  the  pitcher. 

13.  two  of  his  disciples.  Lulie  tells  us  they  were  Peter  and 
John  (xxii.  8). 

a  man  bearing'  a  pitcher  of  water.  A  servant  or  member 
of  the  family.  '  The  carr3'ing  of  the  jar  of  water  was  no  doubt  a 
pre-arranged  sign  of  identity'  (Allen),  between  Jesus  and  the 
liouseholder.  This  would  suggest  that  the  arrangement  had  been 
made  as  a  counter- plan  after  Judas's  visit  to  the  chief-priests,  which 
therefore  probably  took  place  on  Tuesday  night  or  during  Wednes- 
day. 

14.  The  Master  (Teacher)  saith,  Where  is  my  g^uest- 
chamber  ?  '  My  guest-chamber,'  that  is,  '  the  lodging  destined  for 
me' — perhaps  a  suggestion  of  pre-arrangement  This  was  the 
simple  message  with  which  the  two  were  charged,  and  they 
were  to  deliver  it  to  '  the  goodman  of  the  house '  himself. 

15.  he  will  himself  shew  you.  The  master  of  the  house  was 
himself  to  take  them  to  the  room — another  trace  of  the  object  of 
Jesus'  secret  understanding  with  him,  to  avoid  all  risks.  They 
were  to  be  shewn  a  'large  upper  room,'  a  chamber  suitable  for 
the  occasion  and  for  the  company,  all  '  furnished  and  ready,'  that 
is,  provided  with  the  necessary  low  table  and  carpets  or  divans. 
See  also  the  note  on  verse  51  for  this  as  a  disciple's  house. 

xiv.  17-21.  The  Last  Supper  {cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  20-25  ;  Luke  xxii. 
14,  21-23;  John  xiii.  2,  21-30^ 

Edersheim  {Lt/e  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.  510)  justly 
observes  that,  'while  the  historical  nexus  with  the  Paschal  Supper 
is  evident,  it  almost  seems  as  if  the  Evangelists  had  intended,  by 
their  studied  silence  in  regard  to  the  Jewish  Feast,  to  indicate  that 
with  this  celebration  and  the  new  Institution  the  Jewish  Passover 
had  for  ever  ceased.'  To  this  we  may  add  that,  Mark's  Gospel 
being  meant  special!}'  for  Gentile  readers,  its  narrative  of  the  Last 
Supper  is  ns  free  as  possible  of  anything  that  implies  for  its  under- 
standing any  knowledge  of  the  usages  proper  to  a  Passover  Meal. 


ST.  MARK  14.  16-18.     XMk  381 

room  furnished  atid  ready  :  and  there  make  ready  for  us. 
And  the  disciples  went  forth,  and  came  into  the  city,  16 
and  found  as  he  had  said  unto  them  :  and  they  made 
ready  the  passover. 

And  when  it  was  evening  he  cometh  with  the  twelve.  17 
And  as  they  "■sat  and  were  eating,  Jesus  said,  Verily  I  say  18 
unto  you,  One  of  you  shall  betray  me,  even  he  that  eateth 

*  Gr.  reclined 

It  directs  attention  purely  to  the  acts  and  words  of  Jesus  which 
bore  on  the  situation  in  which  he  and  his  disciples  then  \vere,  and 
on  the  light  in  which  he  wished  them  to  view  it— in  a  word,  on 
its  distinctive!}'  Christian  aspects.  Yet  in  reconstructing  the  com- 
plete story  in  the  Upper  Chamber,  even  so  far  as  Mark  affords 
liints  towards  it,  a  knowledge  of  Passover  customs  at  the  time  is 
of  value  ;  only  we  must  beware  of  assuming  that  these  were  as 
fixed  and  elaborate  as  those  in  use  to-day,  or  even  as  those  wit- 
nessed to  in  our  earliest  Jewish  authorities  (cf.  Edersheim,  ii. 
492  ff.). 

\*l.  when  it  was  evening'.  The  Passover  was  eaten  just  after 
sunset  (Ex.  xii.  6),  'between  the  evenings'  (marg.\  i  e.  in  the 
twilight  between  sunset  and  dark. 

with  the  twelve  :  including  Judas,  now  thinking  how  he 
might  use  the  opportunity  that  was  arising. 

18.  as  they  sat  and  were  eating- :  therefore  after  the  Kiddiish 
or  Solemn  Blessing,  and  probably  during  or  after  the  eating  of  the 
Paschal  Lamb  itself,  which  would  give  point  to  the  words  which 
follow. 

One  of  you  shall  batray  me.  A  new  suggestion,  which 
must  have  caused  blank  consternation  to  the  rest  of  the  Twelve, 
and  to  Judas  strained  expectancy  as  to  what  his  Master  would  say 
or  do  next.  According  to  John,  it  was  after  he  had  washed  the 
disciples'  feet  that  he  spoke  the  significant  words  '  ye  are  clean, 
but  not  all,'  and  referred  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Scripture  '  he 
that  eateth  my  bread  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me'  (John  xiii.  10, 
18).  This  affords  a  parallel  account  to  the  intimation  here  of  the 
terrible  fact  that  other  hands  than  those  of  hostile  Jewish  and 
Roman  officials  were  to  be  concerned  with  his  delivering  up  and 
death.  The  words  'even  he  that  eateth  with  me'  are  given  only 
b}'  Mark.  They  refer,  however,  to  the  verse  of  a  psalm  (xli.  9) 
which  John  xiii.  18)  records  that  Jesus  quoted  :  'Yea,  mine  own 
familiar  friend,  .  .  .  which  did  eat  of  my  bread,  hath  lifted  up  his 
heel  against  me.'  The  traitor  was  an  intimate  of  him  whom  he 
betra3'ed,  even  by  the  sacred  bond  of  common  food. 


30 


382  ST.  MARK  14.  19,  20.     XMic 

19  with  me.  They  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  to  say  unto 
him  one  by  one,  Is  it  I?  And  he  said  unto  them, 
It  is  one  of  the  twelve,  he  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the 

Luke  shews  at  this  point,  in  a  striking  way,  the  independence 
of  the  special  source  which  colours  so  largely  his  account  of  the 
Last  Supper,  since  he  places  the  reference  to  betrayal  after  the 
symbolic  acts  and  words  in  verses  22-25.      For  this  there  is  much 
to  be  said  on  the  ground   of  superior  probability  in  the  order  of 
thought  in  his  narrative  here.     Jesus  begins  by  saying  that  he  had 
indeed   desired  earnestly   'to  eat  this   Passover'   (a  phrase  pro- 
bably meant  by  Luke  to  imply  that  the  Passover  meal  was  already 
nearly  over  when  he  spoke,  though  some  think  this  was  a  mis- 
take, helped  by  Luke's  olher  source,  viz.  Mark)  with  his  disciples 
before  he  suffered :  for  he  will  not  eat  it  (again,  cf.  '  henceforth,' 
just  below)  '  till  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  '  (for  another 
view  see  Box  in  ihe  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies,  iii.  357  ff.,  cf.  below). 
Accordingly,  since  he  and  they  were  to  be  parted  till  then,  the  hour 
becomes  in  idea  the  eve  of  their  renmon  in  the  Messianic  Feast  (verses 
29  f.)  ;  and  so  he  proceeds  to  hallow  it  'over  wine,'  according  to  the 
Jewish  custom  of  the  Kiddnsh  (Hallowing)  on  the  Eve  of  Festivals. 
He  then  breaks  bread  as  symbol  of  his  own  body,  as  Paschal  Lamb, 
as  preparing  the  way  to  the  Messianic  Kingdom  and  Feast.     This 
leads  dircclly  (after  19  a,  in  the  shorter  text)  to  the  thought  of  the 
means  by  which  his  death  was  to   come  about,  viz.  the  act  of  a 
betrayer,  whose  '  hand  '  was  with  his  on  the  same  table  of  friend- 
ship.    For  thus  the  Son  of  Man  was  to  go  his  predetermined  way 
of  rejection  and   death  (cf.  Isa.  liii).    '  But  woe  to  that  man  through 
whom  be  is  delivered  up.' 

This  gradual  approach  to  the  terrible  climax,  brought  about 
through  one  of  themselves,  has  a  psychological  fitness  which  com- 
mends it  as  likest  to  Jesus'  own  considerate  way  with  his  friends. 
Further,  that  Mark  had  no  clear  clue  to  the  reverse  order  is  .'sug- 
gested by  the  fact  that  he  introduces  both  the  section  about  betraj'al 
and  that  which  follows,  by  the  same  vague  description,  '  andasthey 
were  eating'  (verses  18  and  22,  so  Matt,  after  him).  In  any  case 
the  opening  reference  in  Luke  xxii.  15  f.,  to  the  great  desire  Jesus 
had  felt  to  eat  the  Passover  with  the  Twelve  (and  to  use  its  asso- 
ciations of  deliverance  through  sacrificial  blood  for  their  benefit, 
as  well  as  his  own)  ought  almost  certainly  to  be  added  to  Mark's 
narrative  before  verse  22  (so  in  Tatian's  Harmony). 

19.  Is  it  I  ?  Rather  '  Surely  it  is  not  L  is  it  ? '  None  of  them, 
be  it  noted,  thinks  of  Judas,  or  asks  '  Is  it  he  there? '  According 
to  Matthew  (xxvi.  25)  Judas  himself  was  not  ashamed  to  ask,  as 
others  had  done,  '  Is  it  I  ? ' 

20.  he  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish.     To  dip  into  the 


ST.  MARK  14.  21,  22.     XMk  383 

dish.     For  the  Son  of  man  goeth,  even  as  it  is  written  21 
of  him  :  but  woe  unto  that  man  through  whom  the  Son 
of  man  is  betrayed  !  good  were  it  "•  for  that  man  if  he  had 
not  been  born. 

And  as  they  were  eating,  he  took  i' bread,  and  when  23 

*  Gr.  for  him  if  thai  matt  ^  Or,  a  loaf 


same  ('the  one'  BC)  dish  with  another  was  a  token  of  intimate 
friendship,  as  is  seen  in  the  invitation  of  Boaz  to  Ruth  at  mealtime 
(Ruth  ii.  14).  There  is  no  good  reason  to  see  here  any  more 
specific  reference. 

According-  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  however.  John  at  Peter's  sug- 
gestion asked  Jesus  directly  who  was  meant  ;  and  Jesus  facing 
towards  John,  as  they  reclined  on  their  left  elbows,  and  having 
the  latter's  ear  near  his  own  lips,  replied  that  it  was  he  to  whom 
lie  was  about  to  give  the  sop  (John  xiii.  24-26).  This  would  be 
the  sign,  the  selection  of  Judas  to  receive  a  special  mark  of  table- 
fellowship.  But  that  is  probably  not  what  the  saying  in  Marie 
and  the  other  Synoptics  reall}*  means  ;  it  has  in  view  only  a 
general  description  of  a  trusted  friend.  This  is  clear  in  Matt. 
xxvi.  23,  '  he  that  hath  dipped.' 

21.  the  Son  of  man  goeth.  This  simple,  solemn  word  '  go  ' 
is  repeatedly  used  by  John  with  reference  to  the  death  of  Jesus 

John  viii.  14,  21,  xiii.  3,  33,  xiv.  4). 

even  as  it  is  written:  or,  as  Luke  gives  it,  'as  it  hath  been 
determined.'  The  departure  of  Jesus  to  his  death  was  no  mere 
accident  in  his  career,  nor  simply  the  result  of  that  collision  with 
the  world  to  which  all  prophets  and  rightrous  men  are  subject, 
but  the  fulfilment  of  the  purpose  of  God  and  of  the  testimony  of 
Messianic  Scripture,  e.g.  Isa.  liii;   Ps.  xxii. 

but  woe  unto  that  man.  The  deed  of  Judas  was  the  work 
neither  of  chance  nor  of  necessity.  The  counsel  of  God  fulfilled 
itself  indeed,  even  through  his  treachery.  But  that  neither  super- 
seded the  free  action  and  responsibility  of  Judas  nor  relieved  him 
of  his  guilt  (cf.  Acts  ii.  23). 

g"ood  were  it  for  that  xnan  if  he  had  not  been  born.  A 
current  phrase,  found  in  Enoch  xxxviii.  2,  and  suggestive  of  a 
dread  and  exceptional  doom,  cf.  ix.  42. 

xiv.  22-25.  Ji'siis''  coining  Paschal  Sacrifice  foreshadowed  in 
symbol  (cL  Matt.  xxvi.  26-29  >  Luke  xvii.  17-20;  see  also  i  Cor. 
xi.  23-25  . 

22.  And  as  thoy  were  eating,  he  took  bread.  According  to 
Mark's  narrative  a  later  stage  of  the  meal  tiian  that  alluded  to  in 


384 


ST.  MARK  14.  22.     XMk 


verse  i8  had  now  been  reached  :  yet  in  view  of  our  note  on 
verse  i8  we  can  be  sure  of  no  more  than  that  the  meal  was  actually 
in  progress.  At  what  point  was  it  that  '  he  took  bread '  as  here 
described  ?  On  this  question  opinion  is  divided.  All  depends  on 
whether  the  meal  was  the  Passover  or  not.  In  the  former  case 
it  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Jesus  would  not  interfere 
with  the  usual  ceremonial,  but  would  follow  it  out  in  all  its  essen- 
tial parts,  and  only  then  add  the  special  acts  known  as  the  Insti- 
tution of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  celebration  of  the  Passover  at 
that  time  appears  to  have  begun  with  the  Kiddush  or  'Hallowing' 
of  the  Feast  by  a  preliminary  Blessing  of  God  over  a  cup  of  wine, 
which  was  then  passed  round  and  drunk.  Later  a  second  cup 
was  drunk,  after  the  'telling'  {Haggddak)  of  the  Paschal  deliver- 
ance and  joyous  praise  for  the  same  in  the  singing  of  the  first 
part  of  ihe  Hallel  (consisting  of  Psalms  cxiii,  cxiv),  just  before  the 
actual  eating  of  the  Passover  began.  Thereafter  the  third  cup 
was  drunk,  a  '  Cup  of  Blessing  '  in  connexion  with  '  Grace'  after 
the  meal  ;  then  followed  the  singing  of  the  second  part  of  the 
Hallel,  consisting  of  Psalms  cxv-cxviii,  and  the  drinking  of  the 
fourth  and  final  cup.  Perhaps,  then,  what  is  here  recorded  came 
soon  after  the  lamb  was  eaten  (cf.  i  Cor.  xi.  25,  'after  having 
supped  ')  and  the  characteristic  ceremonial  of  the  Passover  was 
now  practically  ended.  (The  objection  that  there  is  no  explicit 
reference  to  eating  the  Paschal  lamb  is  quite  without  force,  since 
there  was  no  need  of  this  for  the  purpose  of  Jesus'  special  words 
and  acts.)  The  '  blessing  '  and  '  breaking  of  bread  '  was  a  familiar 
form  of  '  hallowing'  (Kiddiisli)  or  prelude  to  coming  festivals  (see 
next  note).  Even  the  daily  meals  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples  had 
a  sacred  character  in  virtue  of  the  Blessing  by  which  they  were 
hallowed,  in  keeping  with  Jewish  usage  (cf  Edersheim,  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  ii.  207),  especially  where  a  group  of  male  Jews  partook 
together  of  food  and  drink  — regarded  as  gifts  of  their  Covenant 
God  for  which  thanksgiving  was  offered  in  return,  as  'the  sacri- 
fice of  praise '  (see  Mansfield  College  Essays,  pp.  55  ff.  and  refer- 
ences there).  This  is  clear,  not  only  from  Jewish  analogy,  but 
also  from  the  reference  in  Luke  xxiv.  30  f,  35.  For  there  we 
learn  that  it  was  from  the  way  in  which  the  stranger  at  Emmaus 
'blessed  '  the  bread,  as  he  brake  it  ceremonially  at  the  beginning 
of  their  evening  meal,  that  the  two  disciples  recognized  him  as 
none  other  than  their  Master. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Last  Supper  was  eaten  the  evening 
before  the  Passover  (as  the  Fourth  Gospel  implies),  then  the 
Breaking  of  the  Bread  as  a  symbol  of  Jesus'  body,  and  the  giving 
of  the  Cup  as  symbol  of  his  blood,  took  the  place  of  the  Passover 
Meal,  as  a  sort  of  symbolic  anticipation  of  it  during  the  meal  of 
fellowship  then  being  enjoyed  for  the  last  time.  According  to  such 
a  view  Luke  would  best  preserve  the  order  of  the  meal  of  Fellow- 


ST.  MARK  14.  22.     XMk  385 

ship  on  this  occasion.  It  would  include  a  Kiddtish  or  '  Hallow- 
ing '  Cup  of  Wine,  to  hallow  the  feast  which  followed,  as  at  the 
meal  on  the  eve  of  each  Sabbath  and  all  the  great  Festivals.^  As 
the  Passover  Festival  began  on  this  evening  (the  opening  of  the 
preliminary  Day  of  Unleavened  Bread,  referred  to  on  verse  12), 
Jesus  might  naturally  allude  to  the  coming  Festival  in  connexion 
with  his  Blessing  over  the  Cup  of  Wine,  the  first  of  the  two  which 
occur  in  the  usual  text  of  Luke  (one  before,  one  alter,  the  Break- 
ing of  the  Loaf).  According  to  some  (e.g.  Box,  as  above',  he  did 
so  in  order  to  say  how  he  had  longed  to  join  once  more  with 
them  in  the  actual  Passover  feast,  but  that  his  longing  was  not  to 
be  realized  :  'for,'  says  Jesus,  '  I  will  not  eat  it  until  it  be  fulfilled 
in  the  Kingdom  of  God  ' — the  new  order,  for  the  bringing  in  ol 
which  his  Paschal  death  was,  as  he  now  felt  with  assurance,  the 
prior  condition.  But  though  he  could  not  share  the  coming  Pass- 
over with  his  disciples,  he  could  share  the  Kiddi'ish  or  Hallowing 
of  the  Festival  of  Redemption,  both  in  memory  of  its  old  form  and 
in  anticipation  of  its  new  and  higher  '  fulfilment'  in  and  through 
his  own  broken  body  and  shed  blood.  Of  this  redemption  he  then 
proceeded  to  set  forth  prophetically  a  symbolic  representation, 
under  the  form  of  Bread  and  Wine  as  symbols  of  his  body  and 
blood. 

Of  these  two  views  the  latter  seems  excluded  b\'  Mark's  words 
'  as  they  were  eating,'  since  Kiddiish,  whether  for  Sabbath  or 
other  festival,  precedes  all  eating  at  the  meal  :  the  former,  on  the 
other  liand,  fulfils  this  condition.  While  it  followed  the  Paschal 
meal,  it  was  relative  to  a  Feast  yet  future,  '  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God.'  But  though  ivhat  Mark  records  was  in  fact  the  Kiddiish 
for  the  Messianic  Feast,  it  is  so  narrated  as  to  be  intelligible  to 
non-Jewish  readers  per  se,  viz.  as  a  symbolic  foreshadowing  of 
Jesus' coming  death,  for  the  disciples'  instruction  as  to  its  meaning 
and  saving  value.  That  this  is  the  primary  thought  in  Jesus'  mind 
— in  keeping  with  his  disciples' actual  need  for  reassurance  before- 
hand touching  the  meaning  of  his  death  (a  thing  inconsistent  with 
their  conception  of  the  Messiah)  is  strongly  borne  out  by  the 
way  in  which  Paul  sums  up  the  significance,  one  and  the  same  in 
the  case  of  both  symbols,  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  i  Cor.  xi.  26 : 
'  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim 
the  Lord's  death''  (as  the  Jewish  family  set  forth  the  Paschal  de- 
liverance in  symbolic  act,  after  previous  '  telling'  {Haggadah)  of 
it  in  word  by  the  house  father).     There   is  no  emphasis  on  the 

^  See  The  Religion  and  Worship  of  the  Synagogue,  by  Oesterley 
and  Box,  ch.  xviii ;  also  the  latter's  paper  on  '  The  Jewish  Antece- 
dents of  the  Eucharist,'  in  The  journal  of  Theological  Studies,  iii. 
357  ff.,  or  his  notes  in  the  companion  volume  on  Matthew  in  this 
series.  But  see  also  the  cogent  criticism  of  this  view  by  J.  C.  Lambert, 
in  the  same  journal,  iv.  1 84  ff. 

C   C 


386  ST.  MARK  14.  23.     X^k 

he  had  blessed,  he  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said, 
23  Take  ye :   this  is  my  body.     And  he  took  a  cup,  and 

eating  and  drinking  of  the  symbols  :  these  acts  are  only  incidental 
to  the  normal  use  of  the  sj'mbols  employed,  as  the  means  by 
which  they  were  appropriated,  without  any  suggestion  that  the 
reality  symbolized  by  them  had  to  be  appropriated  in  similar  fashion 
(see  note  on  '  Take  ye,'  and  observe  that  there  is  no  injunction  at 
all  with  the  giving  of  the  Cup,  of  which  in  fact  '  all  drank  '  before 
Jesus  explained  its  symbolism).  For  the  above  conception  of 
lesus'  meaning  see  further  Dr.  R.  H.  Kennett,  The  Last  Supper, 
'its  significance  in  the  Upper  Room  (Cambridge,  1921),  who  treats 
the  'words  of  Institution'  as  prophetic  revelation,  rather  than  as 
'mystery'  in  the  usual  sense  of  that  term. 

wlien  he  liad  blessed,  lie  brake  it.  In  Luke  and  Paul  the 
words  are  '  when  he  had  given  thanks  '  (Luke  xxii.  19  ;  i  Cor. 
xi.  24).  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  'blessing'  was 
other  than  of  the  type  usual  at  the  breaking  of  bread.  It  was 
simply  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving.  The  wording  of  such  '  blessing,' 
to  judge  by  modern  Jewish  use  (a  use  probably  going  back  in 
essence  to  Jesus'  day),  was  '  Blessed  art  thou,  O  Lord  our  God, 
King  of  the  Universe,  who  bringest  forth  bread  from  the  earth.' 
This  was  the  Blessing  over  Bread  in  ordinary  meals  ;  but  in  the 
Kiddnsh  or  Sanctification  for  the  Festival  of  Passover,  the  Blessing 
over  the  Day,  as  distinct  from  that  over  the  Bread  or  the  Wine 
which  accompanied  it,  blessed  God  also  for  His  love  in  giving  '  the 
Feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  the  season  of  our  Freedom,  as  a 
memorial  of  the  departure  from  Egypt.  .  .  .  Blessed  art  thou,  O 
Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe,  who  has  kept  us  in  life,  and 
hast  preserved  us,  and  enabled  us  to  reach  this  season.'  Such 
would  be  the  kind  of  'blessing'  in  Jesus'  thoughts,  if  not  on  his 
lips,  as  he  '  blessed  '  God  over  the  bread  in  his  KiddAsh  for  the 
com'ing  'fulfilment'  of  the  Paschal  Festival  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God,  shortly  to  follow  on  his  death. 

gave  to  them :  by  handing  it  round,  piece  by  piece,  as  in 
Kiddnsh. 

Take  ye.  The  '  cat '  which  is  inserted  after  the  '  take  m  the 
A.V.  appears  not  to  belong  to  the  original  text.  It  is  found,  ho\y- 
ever,  in  Matthew's  account.  Neither  '  take  '  nor  'eat'  appears  in 
Luke  and  Paul.  They  are  natural  but  later  expansions.  It  is 
the  object-lesson,  putting  his  coming  death  in  a  Paschal  light,  one 
of  deliverance,  not  of  disaster,  that  Jesus  has  here  in  view  in  his 
acts  and  words. 

this  is  my  body.  By  '  this  '  Jesus  means  the  piece  of  bread 
which  he  had  given  to  each — as  a  supplement,  as  it  were,  to  the 
Paschal  meal  proper.  By  the  whole  phrase  he  declares  the 
significance  of  the  broken  loaf  as  related  to  the  actual  occasion, 


ST.  MARK   14.  24.     XMk  387 

when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  gave  to  them  :  and  they 
all  drank  of  it.      And  he  said  unto  them,  This  is  my  24 

with  its  Pabchal  associations  present  to  all  minds.  There  would 
be  in  the  original  Aramaic  used  by  Jesus  no  verb  or  copula  like 
'  is,'  defining  the  sense  in  which  the  bread  stood  for  or  represented 
his  'body  ' — 'just  as  it  does  not  occur  in  the  Jewish  formula  in 
the  breaking  of  bread  at  the  beginning  of  the  Paschal  Supper ' 
(Edersheim),  viz.  '  This  (is)  the  bread  of  misery  which  our  fathers 
ate  in  the  land  of  Egypt.'  And  as  he  himself  was  there  in  living 
bodily  form,  he  could  not  mean  that  each  piece  of  bread  was  in 
any  proper  sense  his  body.  Read  in  their  original  context,  what 
his  words  expressed  was  the  fact  that  the  bread  which  had  been 
given  them,  after  being  broken,  stood  symbolically  for  his  bod}' — 
or  rather  the  sacrificial  giving  of  himself  for  them.  In  Paul's 
account  are  added  the  words  'which  is  for  (on  behalf  of}  3'ou  ' 
(i  Cor.  xi.  24),  so  making  this  meaning  explicit ;  while  in  Luke 
we  have  '  which  is  (being)  given  for  you '  (xxii.  19). 

23.  And  he  took  a  cup.  Probably  not  a  cup  belonging  to  the 
Passover  rite  (e.  g.  the  third  cup,  '  the  cup  of  Blessing  '  or  of  Grace 
after  the  Meal,  for  this  was  not  a  cup  used  in  common),  but  a 
Kiddi'ish  cup  added  to  the  bread,  to  set  forth  another  aspect  of  his 
sacrificial  death,  already  represented  bj'  the  bread  (Jesus'  broken 
body)  used  as  Kiddush  for  the  true  Paschal  Feast,  the  Messianic 
Banquet  of  the  Kingdom  now  imminent  (cf.  Luke  xxii.  29  f.). 
There  is  no  reference  to  this  Cup  in  the  shorter — many  think  the 
original — text  of  Luke  ^see  margin  of  R.  V.)  :  or  rather,  in  the 
tradition  preserved  in  Luke's  special  source  (=  Luke  xxii.  17)  it 
had  changed  its  position,  and  come  to  precede  the  Bread  as  its 
Kiddush.  (That  is,  the  Bread  was  not  viewed  as  Kiddush—  as  in 
Mark — but  in  the  way  in  which  Christians  had  come  to  'break 
bread  '  '  in  remembrance  '  of  their  Lord,  as  the  Christian  Paschal 
Lamb  or  Redeemer.")  Thus  the  accompanj'ing  words  in  Luke 
have  no  symbolic  reference  to  Jesus'  blood,  as  in  Mark  and  Matt., 
as  well  as  Paul.  For  a  similar  change  of  order  see  the  Didachc, 
ch.  ix. 

and  they  all  drank  of  it:  before,  that  is,  Jesus  added  words 
giving  this  Cup  its  special  significance. 

24.  This  is  my  hlood.  Wine,  'the  blood  of  grapes'  (Gen. 
xlix.  1 1  \  and  human  blood  are  natural  symbols  the  one  of  the  other. 
Thus,  '  the  wine  of  the  drink  offering  seems  to  have  been  a  surro- 
gate '  or  substitute  'for  sacrificial  blood'  (Kennett,  op.  cit.,  p.  27). 
Ecclesiasticus  (1.  15)  says  that  Simon  the  High  Priest  'poured  of 
the  blood  of  the  grape,  he  poured  out  at  the  foot  of  the  altar  a 
sweet-smelling  savour  unto  the  Most  High,  the  King  of  all.' 
Hence  'a  devout  Jew  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  would  find  no 
difficulty  in  regarding  wine  as  a  substitute  for,  or  at  all  events  a 


388  ST.  MARK  14.  25.     X^ 

25  blood  of  ^  the  ^  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many.    Verily 

*  Or,  the  testament  ^  Some  ancient  authorities  insert  new 

type  of,  sacrificial  blood  ;  and  .  .  .  although  the  drinking  of  any  real 
blood  (sacrificial  or  otherwise)  would  have  seemed  to  be  absolutely 
abominable,  he  would  have  no  scruples  in  drinking  that  which 
was  lawful  in  itself  and  which  was  associated  with  religious  usage, 
always  provided  that  he  did  not  take  literally  the  comparison  of  it 
to  blood  '  {id.).  By  '  this  '  Jesus  means  the  wine  in  the  cup  which 
he  gave  to  the  Twelve  ;  and  this  wine,  he  says,  stands  for  or 
represents  his  blood. 

of  the  covenant.  So  also  in  Matthew.  Paul  and  Luke  give 
the  sentence  in  the  form  '  This  Cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my 
blood  '  (r  Cor.  xi.  25).  The  words,  say  most,  point  back  to  those 
spoken  by  Moses  of  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  at  Sinai, 
'  Behold  the  Blood  of  the  covenant,  which  the  Lord  hath  made 
with  you  concerning  all  these  words '  (Exod.  xxiv.  8).  They 
would  thus  mean  that  Jesus  was  instituting  a  new  and  better 
covenant  than  the  Sinaitic,  and  that  it  was  to  be  ratified  by  the 
blood  of  a  better  sacrifice.  But  this  is  very  questionable,  since  it 
starts  (as  Allen  admits)  'a  new  thought,'  unrelated  to  the  associa- 
tions of  the  Passover,  which  alone  seem  to  have  been  before  the 
thoughts  of  all  at  this  time  (cf.  i  Cor.  xi.  26,  cited  above).  Hence 
by  'the  covenant'  here  in  Mark  and  Matthew  (as  distinct  from  the 
wording  in  Paul  and  Luke)  seems  to  be  meant  the  fundamental 
covenant  with  Israel,  in  their  father  Abraham,  under  which  (cf. 
Exod.  vi.  4  f.)  God  intervened  with  the  Paschal  Redemption  (cf. 
next  note)  out  of  Egypt — the  alien  world-power  which  held  Israel 
in  bondage — not  the  covenant  as  re-made  with  Abraham's  seed 
collectively  on  another  and  later  occasion.  Of  this  latter  there  is 
no  suggestion  either  in  the  narrative  or  in  the  psychological 
associations  proper  to  the  Paschal  season  :  it  has  to  be  imported 
quite  abruptly  into  the  circle  of  thought  within  which  all  has 
hitherto  been  moving.  As  e.g.  Allen  admits,  'the  thought  of  the 
covenant  is  not  further  developed  here  '  :  and,  indeed,  it  is  probable 
that  it  is  introduced  at  all  only  as  implied  by  the  Paschal  deliver- 
ance, not  for  its  own  sake,  as  though  Jesus'  blood  were  the  seal 
of  a  ttciv  covenant.  The  emphasis  represented  by  the  addition  of 
'  new,'  first  in  Paul  and  then  in  Luke,  is  foreign  to  the  context  of 
the  passage,  and  probably  to  Jesus'  own  thought,  which  deals 
rather  with  the  idea  of  '  fulfilment '  of  the  Mosaic  Law  in  the 
Gospel  in  a  higher  and  more  real,  because  spiritual,  form  (so  in 
the  Epistle  to  Hebrews,  as  distinct  from  Paul's  special  emphasis). 

which  is  shed  for  many :  rather  '  which  is  being  shed  on 
behalf  of  many '  ;  comp.  x.  45,  'to  give  his  life  a  ransom  instead  of 
many.'  Tlie  pouring  out  of  the  wine  corresponds  to  the  breaking 
cf  the  bread,  and  has  like  Paschal  reference  to  the  self-sacrifice  of 


ST.  MARK  14.  25.     XMk  389 

I  say  unto  you^  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the 
vine,  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

Jesus  as  of  a  Iamb  without  blemish  (i  Peter  i.  19).  The  sacrificial 
meaning  of  his  death  and  its  relation  to  the  spiritual  redemption  of 
God's  People  (cf.  x.  45) — from  the  midst  of  a  '  perverse  generation  ' 
(Acts  ii.  40,  cf.  vii.  51-53"!,  and  a  state  comparable  spiritually  to 
Egypt  (cf.  Rev.  xi.  8) — is  suggested,  in  terms  proper  to  the  Pass- 
over season,  by  Mark's  description  of  Jesus'  'covenant  blood  '  as 
'  in  process  of  being  shed  on  behalf  of  many.'  A  more  specific 
form  is  given  to  the  idea  in  Matthew's  '  shed  for  (Jtt.  "concerning") 
man}',  unto  forgiveness  of  sins.'  For  the  general  idea  of  a  life 
offered  on  behalf  of  '  many,'  see  Isa.  liii.  10  f. 

25.  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that 
day  when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  king'dom  of  God.  Compare  the 
promise  in  Luke  (xxii.  29,  30),  '  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table  in  my  Kingdom,'  and  for  the  simile  (which  was  used  in  con- 
temporary Jewish  thought  as  a  figure  for  the  joy  of  Messianic 
Kingdom)  the  parables  of  the  great  Supper  and  the  Marriage  Feast 
(Luke  xiv.  16-24  5  Matt.  xxii.  r-i4\  Matthew's  more  pointed 
form,  '  I  will  not  drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine'  (xxvi. 
29),  is  meant  to  bring  out  the  contrast  implied.  The  words  express, 
in  the  first  place,  the  fact  that  this  was  the  last  occasion  on  which 
Jesus  would  thus  drink  wine  with  his  disciples,  so  hinting  plainh' 
at  his  imminent  death.  But  they  speak,  in  the  second  place,  of  a 
future  renewal  participation — a  day  when  he  should  drink  it  new 
('new,'  not  in  the  sense  of  recent  or  fresh,  but  of  another  and 
better  kind).  This  refers,  as  the  phrase  '  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ' 
implies,  to  the  perfected  condition  of  things,  the  consummation  of 
God's  kingdom,  the  Coming  Age  in  which  all  things  are  to  be 
made  new  (Rev.  xxi.  5).  There  he  will  take  part  in  a  Feast  of  a 
new  and  better  kind,  in  a  fellowship  of  a  higher  order. 

Luke  has  this  verse  before  Jesus'  reference  to  himself  as  the 
coming  Paschal  Lamb  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  in  connexion  with 
a  Kiddiish  cup  which  has  no  accompanying  reference  to  his  blood. 

Mark's  account  of  the  Institution  is  the  most  concise  and  clear. 
It  contains  no  statement  either  of  the  memorial  purpose  of  the 
Supper  or  of  its  perpetuity.  The  same  is  the  case  with  Matthew. 
As  regards  both  of  these  points,  their  absence  means  that  the 
words  and  symbolic  acts  distinctive  of  the  Last  Supper  had  as  their 
first  intention  the  preparation  of  the  disciples  for  the  shock  of  their 
Master's  coming  death,  by  shedding  anticipatory  light  upon  its 
true  meaning.  Thus  it  was  primaril}'  an  embodied  '  parable  '  of  the 
Kingdom,  in  its  most  profound  and  cardinal  aspect  as  redemption, 


39° 


ST.  MARK  14.  26,  27.     XMk 


26  And  when  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they  went  out  unto 
the  mount  of  OUves. 

27  And  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  All  ye  shall  be  »  offended  : 

*  Gr.  caused  to  stumble 


in  which  the  solidarity  of  Jesus  and  his  own,  in  his  redemptive 
death  and  in  the  glad  fellowship  resting  on  it,  is  most  strildnglj-  set 
forth  for  heart  as  well  as  head  (comp.  Kennett,  The  Last  Supper, 
cited  above).  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this,  as  some  argue, 
that  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  we  know  it,  was  the  creation  of  Paul. 
It  is  in  the  Pauline  account,  indeed,  that  we  have  the  first  express 
statement  of  the  memorial  meaning  of  the  Supper,  to  be  observed 
till  Christ  comes  (r  Cor.  xi.  24-26).  But  we  have  good  reason  to 
believe  that  Paul  had  received  his  account  of  the  Last  Supper  (for 
the  most  part)  as  already  an  Apostolic  tradition,  just  as  he  had 
received  the  essence  of  the  common  Apostolic  Gospel  from  those 
bel'ore  him  (i  Cor,  xv.  i,  sff.).  Exactly  how  that  tradition  took 
shape,  and  how  it  was  related  to  the  practice  of  Eucharistic 
'  Breaking  of  Bread'  in  the  primitive  Church  i;.\cts  ii.  42,  46),  is  a 
rather  obscure  page  in  t!ie  history  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  touch- 
ing which  any  definite  assertion  would  here  be  out  of  place. 

xiv.  26.  Departure  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  (cf.  Matt,  xxvii.  30  ; 
Luke  xxii.  39;  John  xiv.  31,  cf.  xviii.  i). 

26.  when  they  had  sung  a  hymn  :  in  all  probability  the  second 
part  of  tlie  Hallel,  which  it  was  customary  to  sing  after  the  Paschal 
meal.     This  consisted  of  Psalms  cxv-cxviii. 

unto  the  mount  of  Olives.  They  turned  their  steps  in  the 
direction  of  their  usual  resting-place  for  the  night.  This  answers 
to  John  xiv.  31  rather  than  xviii.  i,  which  is  parallel  in  time  rather 
to  verse  32. 

xiv.  27-31.  Announcement  0/  Desertion  by  the  Twelve  and  Denial 
by  Peter{c{.  Matt.  xxvi.  31-35  ;  Luke  xxii.  31-34  ;  John  xiii.  36-38). 

27.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  them.  The  words  that  follow  are 
given  by  the  first  two  Evangelists  as  spoken  after  the  party  had 
left  the  supper-room.  Luke  and  John  introduce  their  equivalents 
before  that.  In  view  of  the  greater  fulness  and  circumstantiality 
of  Luke's  narrative  of  what  happened  in  the  Upper  Room,  especi- 
ally after  the  Supper  proper  (24-38),  his  account  may  perhaps 
in  this  be  preferred.  Mark's  and  Matthew's  are  possibly  both 
based  on  current  Apostolic  tradition,  not  on  Peter's  special  memory 
(note  the  O.  T.  quotation  from  Zech.  xiii.  7,  which  is  not  in  Mark's 
usual  manner  ;  cf.  note  on  verse  28%  and  give  the  conversation  in 
the  order  of  ideas  rather  than  in  that  of  time,  so  bringing  it  into 
more  immediate  connexion  with  the  fulfilment  of  Jesus'  words. 

offended:    cf.  John  xvi.   i.     Jesus  had  spoken  to  others  of 
offences  or  causes  of  stumbling,  Mark  iv.  17,  vi.  sfi".,  ix.  43  ;  Luke 


ST.  MARK  H.  28-30.     XMk  391    ' 

for  it  is  written,  I  will  smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep 
shall  be  scattered  abroad.     Howbeit,  after  I  am  raised  28 
up,  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee.     But  Peter  said  ^9 
unto  him,  Although  all  shall  be  ^  offended,  yet  will  not  I. 
And  Jesus  saith  unto  him.  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  that  3° 
thou  to-day,  even  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow  twice, 

*  Gr.  caused  to  stumble 

vii.  23.  These  warnings  are  directed  now  to  the  Twelve  them- 
selves, largely  unconscious  as  they  were  of  the  trial  before  them. 
for  it  is  written.  What  follows  is  taken,  with  some  modifi- 
cation, from  Zechariah  (xiii.  7)  :  '  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my 
Shepherd,  and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  ;  smite  the  Shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered.' 
Neither  this  verse  nor  the  next  appears  at  all  in  Luke. 

28.  after  1  am  raised  np.  Here  'raised  up,'  not  Mark's  usual 
'rise  again'  (viii.  31,  ix.  31.  x.  34),  is  to  be  noted,  as  perhaps  a 
sign  that  he  is  following  a  different  type  of  the  Apostolic  tradition 
from  his  usual  one  (cf.  Matthew's  form  of  the  above  passages). 
No  notice  of  any  such  saying  as  this  verse  contains  is  taken  by 
Peter  in  his  response  i^ contrast  ix.  10^.  a  fact  which  suggests  that 
it  was  a  secondary  element  in  the  tradition  (cf.  verse  30^  when  the 
original  psychological  situation  was  parti}'-  forgotten.     Cf.  253  top. 

go   before    yon   into    Galilee.     Cf.  xvi.   7,  words   put    into 
the  Angel's  lips  at  the  tomb,  and  see  Appended  Note  after  ix.  13. 

29.  But  Peter  said  vinto  him.  Ihe  impulsive,  warm- 
hearted Apostle  cannot  bear  the  thought  of  cowardly  faithlessness; 
and  in  the  haste  of  his  self-confident  feelings  he  breaks  out  into 
hot,  impetuous  words  of  repudiation.  The  protestation  is  given  in 
much  the  same  form  b}'  Matthew.  In  Luke  the  terms  are  some- 
what different,  and  the  forewarning  itself  is  more  pointed  and 
circumstantial  (xxii.  31-34).  The  differences  in  John's  narrative, 
too,  are  considerable,  and  point  (together  with  Luke's  account)  to 
a  rather  different  context  (xiii.  36-38). 

30.  thon  to-day,  even  this  night,  before  the  cock  crow  twice, 
Shalt  deny  me  thrice.  Notice  the  significant  '  thou  '  (correspond- 
ing to  Peter's  'I '),  rightly  placed  at  the  beginning  by  the  R.  V.  In 
Matthew  it  is  simply  '  before  the  cock  crow,'  or  rather  '  before  a 
cock  crow,'  that  is,  before  day  begins  to  dawn.  In  Mark  the 
declaration  is  made  more  pointed  bj'  the  precise  statement  of  time, 
in  Jewish  terms  (' to-day,  «r«  this  niglit'),  and  the  mention  of 
the  twice.  Cock-crowing  is  identified  with  the  third  of  the  four 
Roman  watches  (see  xiii.  3:5^.  That  watch,  extending  from  mid- 
night till  about  3  a.m.,  is  called  'the  cock-crowing'  in  this  Gospel 
(xiii.  35).     As  to  the  'twice,'  which  is  peculiar  to  Mark,  it  may  (it 


392  ST.  MARK  14.  31,  32.     X^k 

31  shalt  deny  me  thrice.  But  he  spake  exceeding  vehe- 
mently, If  I  must  die  with  thee,  I  will  not  deny  thee. 
And  in  like  manner  also  said  they  all. 

3i      And  they  come  unto  •''a  place  which  was  named  Geth- 

"■  Gr.  ait  enclosed  piece  of  ground 

genuine  ;   many  MSS.   omit)   be  a  secondary  feature  (cf.  note  on 
verse  27),  due  to  the  actual  ibrm  of  the  fulfilment  (see  xiv.  72). 

31.  But  he  spake  exceeding  vehemently.  The  words  imply 
that  he  went  on  protesting,  and  with  greater  heat.  The  Master's 
words  mortified  him  deeply,  and  made  him  assert  himself  the 
more.     Neither  Luke  nor  John  relates  his  reiteration  of  fidelity. 

And  in  like  manner  also  said  they  all.     This,  too,  is  staled 
also  in  Matthew,  but  not  in  Luke  and  John. 

xiv.  32-42.  The  Agony  in  Gethsemaiie  (cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  36-46 ; 
Luke  xxii.  39-46  ;  also  John  xviii.  i). 

The  fullest  accounts  of  this  momentous  scene  are  given  by  Mark 
and  Matthew.  John  does  not  record  the  Agony.  Luke  gives  a 
briefer  and  partly  independent  narrative,  which  sa3'S  nothing  of 
the  choice  of  the  three  and  speaks  only  of  one  season  of  prayer. 

32.  And  they  come  unto  a  place  which  was  named  Geth- 
semaue.  It  is  not  stated  when  the  party  left  the  upper  room  or 
when  they  arrived  at  this  place.  To  judge  from  the  sleep  of  the 
disciples,  it  must  have  been  late,  possibly  near  midnight.  Luke 
speaks  of  the  place  as  '  the  mount  of  Olives'  (xxii.  39),  and  John 
speaks  of  it  as  '  a  garden'  across  'the  brook  Kidron  '  (xviii.  i). 
Mark  and  Matthew  give  the  name  Gethsemane,  a  word  meaning 
'  olive-press,'  and  indicate  by  the  term  they  use  for  '  place  '  that  it 
was  'an  enclosed  piece  of  ground,'  as  the  margin  of  the  R.  V. 
explains,  'a  property'  (Allen).  It  seems,  therefore,  to  have  been 
an  olive  orchard  ;  and  even  if  it  were  a  private  enclosure,  it  could 
be  entered  without  difficulty,  especially  during  the  Paschal  season. 
The  fourth  Gospel,  moreover,  implies  that  it  wasa  favourite  haunt 
of  Jesus  and  the  Twelve,  and  so  probably  a  garden  belonging  to  a 
personal  friend.  The  traditional  site  is  some  fifty  yards  beyond 
the  bridge  across  the  Kidron.  There  a  plot  of  ground  presents 
itself,  surrounded  by  a  stone  wall  and  having  within  it  some  olive 
trees.  Whether  the  modern  Gethsemane  really  occupies  the  site 
of  the  ancient  garden,  however,  is  doubted  by  not  a  few.  But  in 
any  case  the  former  cannot  be  far  from  the  latter. 

There,  then,  or  hard  by,  was  enacted  within  the  next  hour  or 
two  the  most  sacred  and  momentous,  in  a  real  sense  the  most 
tragic,  drama  in  the  world's  spiritual  history,  that  on  which  de- 
pended its  whole  future  trend  and  spirit.     Its  poignancy  affects  us 


ST.  MARK  14.  33,  34.     XMk  393 

semane  :    and   he  saith  unto  his  disciples,  Sit  ye  here, 
while  I  pray.     And  he  taketh  with  him  Peter  and  James  33 
and  John,  and   began  to  be  greatly  amazed,  and  sore 
troubled.    And  he  saith  unto  them,  My  soul  is  exceeding  34 

the  more  powerfully  by  reason  of  the  contrast  afforded  by  the 
insensibility  to  the  spirit  of  the  hour  and  its  issues  on  the  part  even 
of  the  nearest  of  the  companions  of  the  Central  Figure,  those 
whom  he  had,  in  his  utter  spiritual  solitude  and  lack  of  understand- 
ing sympathy — as  well  as  for  their  own  preparation  for  the  coming 
ordeal — invited  to  share  his  solemn  vigil.  The  spirit  of  the  scene 
is  admirably  caught  by  the  following  lines  : 

A  voice  upon   the  midnight  air, 

Where  Kedron's  moonlit  waters  stray, 
Weeps  forth  in  agony  of  prayer, 

O  Father  !  take  this  cup  away. 
Ah  !  Thou  who  sorrowest  unto  death, 

We  conquer  in  Thy  mortal  fray  ; 
And  earth  for  all  her  children  saith, 

O  God !  take  not  this  cup  away. 

Sit  ye  here,  while  I  pray.  Prayer,  solitary  prayer,  was  the 
supreme  resource  of  Jesus  with  death  now  full  in  view,  and  in 
anticipation  of  the  conflict  which  he  felt  gathering  within  him. 
For  that  he  sought  this  place,  which,  while  near  the  highway,  yet 
gave  opportunity  of  seclusion. 

From  John  (xviii.  i)  we  gather  that  the  Eleven  went  with  Jesus 
into  the  enclosure.  But  eight  of  them  were  bidden  sta}'  near  the 
entrance,  and  only  the  three,  chosen  for  the  last  time  for  most 
privileged  fellowship,  were  taken  further  within. 

33.  began  to  be  greatly  amazed.  The  inward  conflict  "was 
soon  upon  him  ;  and  it  was  so  severe  that  the  Evangelist  seems  to 
exhaust  the  vocabulary  of  struggle  and  dread,  in  order  to  express 
it.  '  Greatly  amazed,'  says  Mark,  using  a  word  peculiar  to  him- 
self in  the  N.T.  and  expressing  here  the  pain  of  a  great  shock  of 
emotion,  as  elsewhere  the  excess  of  an  awe  that  surprises  or 
overpowers  (Mark  ix.  15,  xvi.  5,  6).  Matthew  softens  it  to  '  be 
sorrowful.' 

and  sore  troubled.  Another  expressive  word,  occurring 
only  here  and  in  the  parallel  in  Matthew  and  once  in  Paul  (Phil, 
ii,  26).  It  expresses,  as  is  well  put  by  Swete,  'the  distress  which 
follows  a  great  shock,  "the  confused,  restless,  half-distracted  state" 
(Lightfoot),  which  may  be  worse  than  the  sharp  pain  of  a  fully 
realized  sorrow.'  '  Full  of  terror  and  distress  '  is  Dr.  Weymouth's 
rendering  of  the  two  words. 

34.  And  ho  saith  unto  them.     The  three  are  with  him,  there- 


394  ST.  MARK   14.  35,  36.     X^^ 

sorrowful  even  unto  death  :   abide  ye  here,  and  watch. 

35  And  he  went  forward  a  httle,  and  fell  on  the  ground, 
and  prayed  that,  if  it  were  possible,  the  hour  might  pass 

36  away  from  him.     And  he  said,  Abba,  Father,  all  things 


fore,  thus  far,  seeing  all  ;  and  to  tliem  he  reveals  the  sorrow  that 
distracts  his  soul  within,  craving  as  it  did  to  unburden  itself  to 
others. 

my  soul  is  exceeding'  sorrowful  even  unto  death.  Here 
the  word  '  soul,'  often  used  as  equivalent  to  '  life,'  has  the  more 
definite  sense  of  the  seat  of  the  feelings  and  emotions,  and  so  of 
what  we  call  '  psychological "  pain.  So  it  is  also  in  John  xii.  27, 
but  nowhere  else  so  distinctlyin  the  N.  T.  (cf.  Ps.  xlii,  6,  12,  xliii. 
5).  '  Unto  death,'  that  is,  to  the  point  of  dying  under  it  (Jonah 
iv.  gf.  ;  Psa.  Ixxxviii.  3  ;  Ecclus.  li.  6). 

abide  ye  here,  and  watch:  i.  e.  keep  vigil.  In  the  agoniang 
passages  of  life  men  crave  at  once  solitude  and  sympathy.  Jesus 
must  be  alone,  yet  he  would  have  these  faithful  three  near  him  ; 
he  would  have  their  S3-mpathy,  and  their  fellowship  in  watchful 
preparation  for  the  impending  crisis. 

35.  And  he  went  forward  a  little.  Luke  gives  it  more  pre- 
cisely as  'about  a  stone's  cast'  (xxii.  41). 

fell  on  the  grotmd.  '  On  his  face,'  says  Matthew  (xxvi.  39). 
Luke  states  simply  that  he  'kneeled  down'  (xxii.  41),  a  natural 
attitude  and  common  in  earnest  pra3'er  (Acts  vii.  60,  ix.  40,  xx.  36, 
xxi.  5). 

that,  if  it  were  possible,  the  hour  mig'ht  pass  away  from 
him.  The  full  agony  of  the  struggle  is  in  this  cry,  'if  it  be 
possible,'  i.  e.  without  loss  to  the  Divine  purpose  of  good.  The 
'hour'  is  the  appointed  hour,  the  time  ordained  for  him  in  his 
Father's  counsel,  and  now  foreseen  by  himself.  Even  so  he 
prayed — with  the  instinctive  shrinking  of  nature,  as  yet  unstilled 
by  the  mind's  steadfast  thought  or  purpose — that  his  '  hour'  might 
at  the  last  moment  be  averted.  This  phrase  '  the  hour,'  '  his  hour,' 
occurs  repeatedly  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  more  than  one  applica- 
tion, but  usually  with  reference  to  his  death  (John  ii.  4,  vii.  30, 
viii.  20,  xii.  23,  27,  xiii.   i,  xvi.  21,  xvii.  i). 

38.  Abba,  rather :  words,  Aramaic  and  Greek,  having  the 
same  sense.  Here  the  second  is  an  explanation  of  the  first  for 
the  benefit  of  non-Jewish  readers  (Rom.  viii.  15  ;  Gal.  iv.  6\  as 
if  the  double  term  had  become  a  familiar  form  in  prayer  among 
Greek-speaking  and  even  Gentile  Christians.  Mark  alone  intro- 
duces this  '  Abba,'  and  the  only  other  occurrences  of  this  twofold 
name  of  God  are  the  two  in  Pauline  Epistles. 


ST.  MARK  14.  37,  38.     X^k  395 

are  possible   unto   thee ;    remove   this    cup   from    me : 
howbeit  not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt.     And  he  37 
Cometh,    and    findeth    them    sleeping,    and    saith    unto 
Peter,  Simon,  sleepest  thou  ?    couldest  thou  not  watch 
one   hour  ?     ^  Watch  and  pray,  that  ye  enter  not  into  3^ 

*  Or,  Wntch  ye,  and  pray  that  ye  enter  not 


remove  this  cup  from  m.e.  The  figure  of  the  'cup'  was 
used  before  also  with  reference  to  liis  sufl'erings  :  see  on  x.  38. 
'The  directness  of  the  ungranted  request  is  modified  in  Matthew' 
(Allen),  possibly  already  in  the  tradition  known  to  him,  as  in 
Luke  also. 

howbeit  not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt.  The  longing, 
natural  to  humanity,  to  escape  a  shameful  death  of  agony,  and  that 
as  the  final  expression  of  his  people's  rejection  of  his  message  and  of 
their  own  good  through  it,  yields  in  the  end  to  the  superior  claim 
of  the  Divine  will.  So  really  had  Jesus  a  human  will  capable  of 
conflict  with  the  Divine.  With  this  fact  our  theories  must  fairl}^ 
reckon.  It  is  the  problem  of  theology  to  frame  a  conception  ot 
Jesus'  unique  person  such  as  shall  neither  take  from  the  integrity 
of  his  humanity  nor  ascribe  to  him  a  double  personality. 

37.  findeth  them  sleeping.  After  this  first  paroxysm  of 
prayer  he  seeks  again  the  fellowship  of  the  three,  but  finds  them 
asleep,  his  charge  to  '  watch  '  forgotten.  So  unalive  were  thej* 
even  now  to  the  crisis  really  impending. 

Simon,  sleepest  thou  ?  He  selects  the  one  of  the  three  who 
had  been  loudest  in  protestation,  as  him  from  whom  more  might 
be  expected  ;and  calls  him,  not  Peter,  but  Simon.  There  was,  per- 
haps, at  least  to  the  evangelist's  mind,  reproach  in  the  use  of  the  old 
familiar  name  of  friendship,  instead  of  the  new  name  of  grace  and 
office.  Cf.  Luke  xxii.  31,  '  Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  asked 
(successfully)  to  have  you  (the  apostles;,  to  sift  as  wheat.' 

one  hour  ?  Even  so  brief  a  space,  only  the  third  part  of  one 
of  the  watches  of  the  night.  The  foremost  of  the  apostles  had  not 
the  strength  even  for  that !  Luke  explains  the  sleep  of  the  three 
as  due  to  sorrow  (xxii.  45)  ;  but  probably  he,  even  more  than  the 
other  evangelists,  fails  to  realize  how  little  the  disciples  had  as 
3'et  caught  Jesus'  sense  of  what  was  imminent. 

38.  Watch  and  pray,  that  ye  enter  not:  or,  as  in  the  margin 
of  the  R.  v.,  '  Watch  ye,  and  pray  that  j'e  enter  not.'  The  former 
rendering  puts  more  forcibly  the  truth  that  by  these  two  things, 
vigilance  and  prayer,  they  may  be  kept  from  giving  way  to  tempta- 
tion (an  excellent  illustration  of  the  meaning  of  the  petition  on 
deliverance  from  temptation  in  tiic  Lord's  Prayer).     Watchfulness 


396  ST.  MARK  14.  39-41.     X^^ 

temptation  :    the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh 

39  is  weak.     And  again  he  went  away,  and  prayed,  saying 

40  the  same  words.     And  again  he  came,  and  found  them 
sleeping,    for   their    eyes    were   very   heavy ;    and    they 

41  wist   not  what  to  answer  him.      And   he   cometh   the 


and  prayer  are  meant  to  serve  each  other.  From  Luke  it  would 
appear  that  Jesus  had  already  enjoined  this  duty  of  praying  against 
temptation  upon  the  disciples  generally,  when  he  came  to  the 
garden,  and  before  he  went  apart  into  yet  deeper  solitude  (xxii. 
40). 

temptation :  the  great  inclusive  term  for  all  those  things  by 
which  man  is  tried  and  proved,  whether  by  pain  and  sorrow  or  by 
varied  solicitations  of  '  the  flesh  '  to  sin,  as  these  affect  the  egoism 
and  shrinking  from  pain  native  to  human  beings. 

the  spirit  indeed  is  williug^,  but  tlie  flesh  is  weak :  a 
characteristically  kind  but  searching  apology  for  human  nature, 
even  when  it  fails  and  disappoints.  Occurring  where  it  does,  it 
may  even  come  in  part  out  of  Jesus'  own  recent  experience  of  the 
testing  to  which  man's  estate  exposes  him  :  compare  Heb.  ii.  i8, 
iv.  15,  V.  2,  5  ff .  He  had  just  felt  how  insufficient  the  instrument 
is  through  which  the  spirit  has  to  work  (cf.  Rom,  viii.  3),  To 
understand  all  that  these  two  things,  flesh  and  spirit,  mean,  we 
have  to  turn  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul  and  John.  Everywhere  in 
Scripture  'the  spirit '  is  that  which  gives  life  and  links  man  with 
God  ;  but  in  the  N.  T.,  with  a  meaning  at  once  deeper  and  higher. 
Everywhere,  too,  'the  flesh  '  is  the  note  of  man's  limitations  ;  in 
the  O.  T.  the  designation  of  his  dependence,  frailty,  and  mortality  ; 
in  the  N.  T,  the  designation  not  only  of  the  weakness  of  his  nature, 
as  it  now  is,  but  also  more  definitely  of  its  sinfulness,  its  self- 
centred  opposition  or  indifference  to  God's  will  as  such. 

40.  for  their  eyes  were  very  heavy ;  and  they  wist  not  what 
to  answer  him.  Compare  the  statement  in  ix.  6.  The  tradition 
followed  by  Mark,  like  Luke's  narrative  (see  note  on  'one  hour,' 
v.  37),  is  concerned  to  explain  the  disciple's  strange  carelessness 
at  such  a  season,  the  real  fact  probably  being  that  they  did  not 
realize  its  nature  as  later  Christians  felt  that  the}' must  have  done  ; 
whereas  tlicir  very  confidence  in  their  Master's  power  made  them 
slow  to  take  his  hints  of  danger  seriously.  They  were,  tradition 
suggested,  overpowered  by  sleep  to  an  almost  helpless  degree.  It 
is  the  same  sort  of  apology  as  Luke  gives  for  rather  similar  con- 
duct on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration.  But  Mark's  '  they  wist  not ' 
points  to  shame,  rather  than  a  dazed  condition,  as  the  cause  of 
their  silence  when  again  found  sleeping. 


ST.  MARK  14.  42.     XMk  397 

third   time,   and  saith  unto  them,   Sleep  on  now,   and 
take  your  rest :  it  is  enough  ;  the  hour  is  come ;  behold, 
the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinners. 
Arise,  let  us  be  going  :  behold,  he  that  betrayeth  me  is  42 
at  hand. 

41.  Sleep  on  now,  and  take  your  rest.  On  the  third  occasion 
he  says  nothing  more  of  watching,  but  bids  them  sleep  and  rest; 
for  the  time  for  watchfulness  was  gone,  so  far  as  concerned  the 
present  emergency.  There  is  more  here  than  resigned  permission 
of  the  slumber  which  had  a  certain  excuse  in  the  weariness  of 
nature.  There  is  irony  in  the  words.  Jesus  had  already  employed 
this  weapon  in  dealing  with  typical  Pharisees  (Mark  vii.  9).  Nor 
is  there  anything  incongruous  in  his  use  of  it  even  at  this  most 
solemn  moment.  '  Irony  is  not  inconsistent  even  witli  the  deepest 
anguish  of  soul'  (Meyer). 

it  is  enough.  Better,  simply  '  enough ! '  'No  more  of 
that!'  (Moffatt).  A  phrase  peculiar  to  Mark,  and  scarcely  to  be 
found  anywhere  else  in  its  present  use.  It  seems  to  have  meant 
colloquially  '  the  account  is  closed.'  Here  it  probably  means  '  All 
is  over,'  and  follows  on  the  foregoing  thus  :  'Go  on  sleeping  now 
and  take  j'our  rest  out :  the  chance  that  I  put  within  your  reach 
of  forearming  for  the  conflict  is  already  past.  Enough  of  that 
experiment :  it  is  over.'  Or  it  may  refer,  as  most  lake  it,  to  the 
slumber  of  the  disciples  ;  'But  enough  of  sleep  ;  it  is  the  time  for 
action.'  So  his  tone  changes.  He  has  caught  sight  of  a  body  of 
men  wending  their  way  from  the  city,  and  the  mood  of  sorrowful 
irony  gives  way  again  to  that  of  deep  pathos.  This,  however,  is 
rather  too  abrupt — following  on  '  take  your  rest,'  and  puts  the 
transition  at  the  wrong  point,  which  comes  rather  with  'Arise,  let 
us  be  going,'  a  formal  reversal  of  the  earlier  word,  '  Sleep  on  now.' 
But  in  any  case  the  short,  rapid  sentences  that  now  fall  from  his 
lips — enough  !  the  hour  is  come,  the  Son  of  man  is  being  given  over; 
arise,  let  us  be  going — express  tense,  agitated  feeling. 

into  the  hands  of  sinners.  The  phrase  'the  sinners' 
usually  meant  for  Jews  the  Gentiles,  and  m.ay  do  so  here  in 
Mark  (cf.  x.  33),  while  Matthew  has  'sinners,'  i.e.  sinful  hands 
(cf.  '  of  men,'  Mk.  ix.  31  ;   Matt.  xvii.  22  ;  Lk.  ix.  44). 

42.  Arise,  let  us  toe  going.  Certainly  not  with  a  view  to 
flight,  but  to  meet  the  decisive  hour  and  face  the  betrayer.  The 
three  disciples  were  still  lying  on  the  ground,  though  awake.  He 
has  been  standing  over  them,  and  now  bids  them  rise  and  go  with 
him.  John  states  explicitly  that  Jesus  '  went  forth  '  and  met  Judas 
and  his  band  (xviii.  4). 

The  account  which  the  Synoptical  Gospels  give  of  this  profound 


43 


398  ST.  MARK  14.43-     X^k 

And  straightway,  while  he  yet  spake,  cometh  Judas, 


and  moving  passage  in  Christ's  experience  has  the  unniistakable 
stampof  reality,  and  differs  wholly  from  what  myth  or  legend 
S  have   produced.     They   record    an  Agony   which   a,d   not 
Sst  in  mere  physical  suffering,  nor  yet  in  simple  fear  of  an 
ordinary  kind.     It  is  not  due  simply  to  the  defeat  ot  his  hopes 
S  sappltment  with  his  friends,  or  -ythmg  of  that  k.nd  alone 
nor  IS  it  the  mere  recoil  of  a  sensitive  spirit  from  the  prospect  ot 
5eath-thouc.h  this  was  surely  a  real  element  m  his  '  cup,  as   s 
fmpUed  by  rhe  writer  to  Hebrews.(v.  7  f)  in  the  -st  notably 
realistic  characterization  of  the  Passion  found  in  the  IS.  1.     li  tnai 
we  e^ll^hen  we  should   have  to  say  that  Jesus  himself  was  ,n 
ferior  ?o  many,  not  only  of  his  followers,  who  have  felt  strengthened 
following  Jn  the  ste'ps  of  Faith's  Great  P.oneer(^Heb^xi..),bu 
also  of  certain  non-Christian  heroes  and  saints,  in  courage,  sere 

"'1:  t.t:«e"r^%iew  Jesus,  feelings  .ar,e>y  Jjf » --"-I 
his  Messiknic  experience  and  consciousness.      We  must  see  the 
rejection  by  God^  People,  and  the  death  virtually  at  its  hands 
rTm  which'he  shrank  Xith  such  agony  of  soul    jn  the  ,^gh    of  h- 
representative  function  as  the  bearer  of  the  Father  s  message  ot 
good  wm  and  love  to  His  erring  children,  H.s  wandenng  sheep 
lo  viewed,  their  treatment  of  God's  Anointed,  H.s  ^on  fiar  excel- 
IJ,  meant  for  Jesus  their  own  self-condemnation  as   men  cuU 
nablv  blind,  in  virtue  of  long  failure  to  respond  as  they  should 
have  done    o  the  higher  aspects  of  the   Law  and  the  Prophets 
God's  special  revelation  in  its  preparatory  forms,  and  one  meant 
^  lead  up  to  recognition    of   the  final  or  Messianic  message  of 
Siv  ne  Love  in  the^Gospel.     To  feelthat  he,  with  h^  utter  devo- 
tion   alike    to    the    Heavenly    Father's    gracious   will    for    Israel, 
and  to    he  welfare  of  Israel   itself,  was  being  turned  by  h.s  own 
'people's  attTtude  to  himself,  and  to  the  Gospel  entrusted  to  h.m, 
fnto^he   means   of  bringing    their   corporate   s-   to   a  head  in  a 
terrible  crime,  was,  indeed,  to  have  a  bitter  cup  held  to  his  l.ps  Dy 
his  Father's  hand.     Fain  would  he  be  spared  the  draining  of  it 
but  if  nothing  short  of  this  could  suffice  to  effect  the  change  of 
hearfbTwlikh  alone   Israel's  redemption  f-  ^^ --f^tfiVh"  r 
sinful  state  might  be  achieved,  and  she  rendered  fit  to  ^^[^^ ^^J 
vocation  as  t"e^ medium  of  blessing  to  all  nations,  -  P-'-f.^d  to 
Abraham    then  let  the  Father's  will  be  done,  cost  him  what  it 
mS        The  victory  was  won  ;  and  henceforth  he  advanced  calm 
3  master  of  his  fillings  -  and  so  of  the  situation  as  it  developed 
—on  the  strange  way  of  the  Cross. 

xiv.   43-50.      The  Betrayal  and  Arrest  (cf.   Matt.   xxvi.  47 -.05 
Luke  xxii.  47-53  )  Jo^n  xviii.  a-i  t). 


ST.  MARK  14.  44-46.     XMk  399 

one  of  the  twelve,  and  with  him  a  multitude  with  swords 
and  staves,  from  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes  and 
the  elders.  Now  he  that  betrayed  him  had  given  them  44 
a  token,  saying,  Whomsoever  I  shall  kiss,  that  is  he ; 
take  him,  and  lead  him  away  safely.  And  when  he  45 
was  come,  straightway  he  came  to  him,  and  saith.  Rabbi ; 
and  '-  kissed  him.   And  they  laid  hands  on  him,  and  took  46 

*  Gr.  kissed  him  much 

43.  straightway,  while  he  yet  spake,  cometh  Judas. ^     But 

Mark  gives  no  hint  as  to  when  he  liad  stolen  away  to  inform  the 
chief  priests.  Apart  from  John  xiii.  27-30,  we  should  infer  that  it 
was  only  after  coming  with  the  rest  of  the  Twelve  to  Geth- 
semane. 

•  one  of  the  twelve.  There  is  a  tragic  note  in  this  designation 
of  the  traitor,  here  given  again,  as  already  in  verse  10,  by  all  the 
three  Synoptists  ;  cf.  also  John  vi.  71. 

with  him  a  multitude  with  swords  and  staves.  Judas 
'went  before  them,'  says  Luke  (xxii.  47),  acting  as  guide  to  a 
hastily  gathered  band  sent  by  the  chief  members  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
roughly  armed  against  resistance  with  short  swords  and  clubs 
or  cudgels.  It  was  an  irregular  body  of  men,  probably  made  up 
in  the  main  of  the  Levitical  guards  (John  xviii.  3,  mentions  also 
the  'band'  or  'cohort'  of- soldiers,  whose  services  the  Jewish 
authorities  may  have  secured  by  making  a  representation  to 
Pilate).  These  guards  were  accompanied  also  by  sen'ants  of 
the  high-priests  (as  is  implied  in  verse  47)  and  others,  including, 
as  it  appears  from  Luke  (xxii.  52),  even  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin. 

44.  had  given  them  a  token.  This  had  been  arranged  before 
they  started,  and  it  was  Judas's  own  proposal.  The  concerted 
signal  was  the  usual  salute  given  bj'  a  disciple  to  a  Rabbi,  a  kiss. 

take  him,  and  lead  him  away  safely.  '  Seize  him,'  or 
'arrest  him,'  'and  carry  him  ofT  securely.' 

45.  and  kissed  him:  rather  'embraced  him  '  with  fervour  (cf. 
the  margin  of  the  R.  V.,  '  kissed  him  much  ').  Matthew  represents 
Jesus  as  saying  to  the  traitor,  '  Friend,  do  that  for  which  thou  art 
come  '  (xxvi.  50).  Luke  gives  the  words,  'Judas,  betrayest  thou 
the  Son  of  man  with  a  kiss  1  '  (xii.  48).  John  omits  the  incident 
of  the  kiss,  and  reports  Jesus  as  going  forth  to  meet  the  crowd 
and  putting  to  them  the  question,  'Whom  seek  ye  ?'  (xviii.  4). 

'    He  was  familiar  with  the  place,  as  John  tells  us  (xviii.  2). 


400  ST.  MARK  14.  47-50.     XMk 

47  him.     But  a  certain  one  of  them  that  stood  by  drew  his 
sword,  and  smote  the  *  servant  of  the  high  priest,  and 

48  struck  off  his  ear.     And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
•  them,  Are  ye  come  out,  as  against  a  robber,  with  swords 

49  and  staves  to  seize  me  ?     I  was  daily  with  you  in  the 
temple  teaching,  and  ye  took  me  not  :  but  this  is  done 

50  that  the  scriptures  might  be  fulfilled.     And  they  all  left 
him,  and  fled. 

*  Gr.  bond-servant 

47.  But  a  certain  one  of  them.  John  tells  us  it  was  Simon 
Peter  (xviii.  10). 

drew  his  sword.  A  short  sword  or  knife.  Luke  tells  us 
that  the  eleven  had  two  swords  with  them  (xxii,  38),  and  also 
that,  when  they  saw  what  was  likely  to  happen,  they  asked  him 
whether  they  might  not  use  the  weapon  to  repel  the  assailants 
(xxii.  49).  Peter,  in  his  impetuous  way,  acted  on  his  impulse, 
and  struck  at  once  in  his  Master's  defence. 

the  servant  of  the  hig'h  priest.  All  the  Evangelists  record 
this,  but  only  Jolm  gives  the  name,  Malchus — by  no  means  an 
unusual  one.  The  eye-witness  whose  testimony  underlies  this  part 
of  that  Gospel  in  particular,  being  acquainted  with  the  high  priest 
(cf.  note  on  v.  50),  may  have  known  the  man,  who  probably  was 
taking  a  foremost  part  in  the  seizure. 

struck  off  his  ear.  The  '  right'  ear,  according  to  Luke  and 
John.  Neither  the  remonstrance  of  Jesus  nor  the  healing  of  the 
ear  is  recorded  by  Mark.  The  former  is  given  by  the  other  three 
Evangelists,  though  in  different  terms  (Matt.  xxvi.  52  ;  Luke 
xxii.  51  ;  John  xviii.  11).  The  latter  is  reported  only  by  Luke 
(xxii,  51). 

48.  Are  ye  come  out,  as  against  a  rotober  ?  A  protest  against 
action  fitter  for  a  brigand  or  highwayman  than  for  a  religious 
teacher,  one,  too,  who  had  been  speaking  publicly  day  after  day 
in  the  temple,  and  who  had  given  them  abundant  opportunity  of 
apprehending  him  there,  if  they  had  adequate  cause. 

49.  that  the  scriptures  might  be  fulfilled.  Referring  prob- 
ably to  such  passages  as  Isa.  liii  ;   Zech.  xiii.  7  (cf.  v.  27  above). 

50.  And  they  all  left  him,  and  fled.  That  is,  all  the  eleven, 
the  three  and  their  comrades.  Peter,  however,  soon  followed 
again,  though  'afar  off'  (Markxiv.  54),  and  also  '  another  disciple' 
(John  xviii.  15),  probably  a  resident  in  Jerusalem. 

xiv.  51,  52.  Incident  of  the  Youth.  A  picturesque  and  interest- 
ing episode,  peculiar  to  Mark. 


ST.  MARK  14.  5t-53.     Mk  401 

[Mk]  And  a  certain  young  man  followed  with  him,  51 
having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  him,  over  his  naked  body  : 
and  they  lay  hold  on  him  ;  but  he  left  the  linen  cloth,  52 
and  fled  naked. 

And   they  led  Jesus   away  to  the  high  priest ;   and  53 

51.  a  certain  youngf  man  folio-wed  with  him:  i.e.  near  to 
Jesus'  side.  The  word  implies  a  mere  youth.  Many  conjectures 
have  been  hazarded  as  to  who  this  young  man  was.  Most  pro- 
bably he  was  a  youth  from  the  house  in  which  the  meal  had  been 
eaten,  the  home  of  a  disciple,  some  member  of  whose  family  might 
well  be  concerned  to  watch  how  it  would  fare  with  Jesus.  A 
further  probable  conjecture  is  that  he  was  the  Evangelist  himself 
(cf  Burkitt  in  The  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies,  xvii.  296).  This 
would  explain  w^hy,  while  the  name  is  not  given,  a  slight  incident 
like  this,  which  also  stands  in  no  essential  relation  to  the  arrest, 
is  introduced  in  the  Second  Gospel  and  it  alone.  If  he  was  Mark, 
and  had  come  from  the  house  where  the  Last  Supper  was  held, 
he  may  have  been  the  son  of  the  head  of  the  house — himself,  then, 
the  husband  of  Mary,  Mark's  mother,  wbose  house  was  later  a 
nndezvous  of  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem  where  Peter  was  a 
familiar  figure  (Acts  xii.  12  ff.).  But  if  so,  this  incident  would  be 
'  the  Evangelist's  signature  to  his  portrait  of  Jesus  '  (Wood).  It  is 
quite  likely,  then,  that  the  rest  of  the  Passion  narrative  is  Mark's 
own  memories  [Mk],  rather  than  the  Petrine  form  of  the  general 
Apostolic  tradition  [X'"^"'].     See  also  note  on  xiv.  13. 

having'  a  linen  cloth  cast  atoout  him.  The  word  '  cloth ' 
here  means  a  'wrap'  or  'shirt.'  It  may  have  been  'a  light 
summer  "square"  hastily  caught  up,  or,  possibly,  a  night-dress' 
(Swete).  The  j'oung  man,  therefore,  may  have  been  roused  from 
his  bed  by  the  noise  of  the  crowd  as  it  passed,  and  have  rushed 
out  to  discover  what  it  meant.  Mark  does  not  tell  us  where  this 
happened — whether  the  young  man  had  made  his  way  along  with 
the  multitude,  or  had  met  Jesus  in  the  street  after  the  arrest.  The 
former  is  suggested  by  the  opening  of  the  verse, '  was  accompany- 
ing him.' 

52.  left  the  linen  cloth,  and  fled  naked.  His  courage  sank 
when  his  obvious  sympathy  for  the  prisoner  led  to  hands  being 
laid  upon  himself;  and  he  fled  precipitately. 

xiv.  53-65.  The  trial  before  the  High  Priest  (cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  57- 
68;    Luke  xxii.  54  f.,  63-71  ;  see  also  John  xviii.  12-14,  19-24). 

53.  And  they  led  Jesus  away  to  the  hig^h  priest.  The 
Synoptists  agree  in  stating  that  he  was  taken  straight  from  Geth- 
semane  to  the  high  priest,  or  to  his  house.  Mark  and  Luke  do 
not  give  at  this  point  the  name  of  the  high  priest.     Matthew  says 

Dd 


402  ST.  MARK  14.  53.     Mk 

there  come  together  with  him  all  the  chief  priests  and 


'to  Caiaphas  the  high  priest'  (xxvi.  57)  ;  John  says  that  they  led 
him  'to  Annas  first,'  and  gives  as  the  reason  for  this  the  fact  that 
Annas  was  '  father-in-law  to  Caiaphas,  which  was  high  priest  that 
year'  (xviii.  13).  Annas  was  high  priest  during  a. d.  7-14;  and 
Caiaphas,  or  Joseph  Caiaphas,  held  office  a.  d.  18-36.  It  was  the 
part,  therefore,  of  Caiaphas,  the  actual  holder  of  the  office  at  the 
lime,  to  conduct  any  official  inquiry.  But  Annas  was  still  a  very 
influential  personage,  as  well  as  Caiaphas'  father-in-law  ;  and  if 
his  house  was  nearer  the  scene  of  arrest,  Jesus  may  well  have 
been  taken  to  his  house,  and  a  preliminary  inquiry  been  actually 
held  there  in  an  informal  way. 

and  there  come  tog'ether  witli  Mni  all  the  chief  priests. 
From  this,  and  the  phrase  '  the  chief  priests  and  the  whole 
council'  (San/iecirin)  in  verse  55,  it  is  clear  that  Mark  conceived 
a  full  meeting  of  the  supreme  judicial  Court  of  Judaism  to  have 
been  held  in  a  hurry  and  by  night,  and  to  have  passed  actual 
sentence  of  death  upon  Jesus  then  and  there.  This,  as  will  be 
shown  in  the  appended  note,  is  most  improbable  and  is  excluded 
by  Luke's  account.  Thjs  being  so,  it  is  not  easy  to  say  how  much 
of  this  verse  and  of  what  follows  is  bound  up  with  the  confusion 
in  the  tradition  (one  between  an  informal  hearing  by  night  and  a 
regular  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  next  morning)  upon  which  the 
mistaken  conception  rests.  Whether  or  not  any  others  of  the 
high-priestly  class  (cf.  Acts  iv.  6),  especially  Caiaphas,  were 
with  Annas  when  the  preliminary  inquiry  was  held  (John  xviii. 
12-15,  ^^9-24,  seem  to  imply  the  contrary),  at  any  rate  the 
presence  of  'all  the  chief  priests,'  much  more  of 'all  the  elders 
and  scribes '  composing  the  Sanhedrin,  is  out  of  the  question,  as 
will  now  be  shown. 

Appended  Note  on  Jesus'  Trial  before  fhe  Sanhedrin. 
Our  reading  of  Mark's  (and  Matthew's)  narrative  at  this  point, 
and  onwards  to  verse  65,  must  be  unsatisfactory  until  we  have 
reckoned  with  the  divergent  accounts  in  Luke  and  John.  These 
agree  in  excluding  any  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin  by  night,  as 
distinct  from  an  informal  interrogation  at  Annas'  house  (cf.  Luke 
xii.  54)by  the  high  priest  (by  whom  John  means  Annas),  followed 
in  the  morning  by  a  hearing  before  (Caiaphas  and)  the  Sanhedrin 
in  its  proper  place  of  meeting  (Luke  xxii.  66)  ;  after  which  the 
Sanhedrin  saw  its  way  to  bring  Jesus  before  Pilate  (Lukexxiii.  i ; 
cf.  John  xviii.  28).  This  latter  account  has  recently  been  firmly 
established  as  more  accurate  than  the  Marcan  in  a  paper  by 
Rev.  H.  Danby  in  The  Journal  of  Theological  Studies  (xxi.  51-75), 
entitled   'The   bearing  of  the   Rabbinical  Criminal   Code  on  the 


ST.  MARK  14.  54.     Mk  403 

the   elders  and  the  scribes.     And  Peter  had  followed  54 


Jewish  trial  narratives  in  the  Gospels.'  He  shews  that  we  can- 
not rely  on  the  tract  Sanhcdrin  of  the  Mishna,  or  other  later 
Talmudic  materials,  for  truly  historical  data  as  to  the  criminal 
jurisdiction  and  usages  of  the  supreme  Jewish  Court  under  Roman 
rule  in  the  first  century  X.I).  Further  he  shews  (a)  that  'the 
Gospel  narratives  [as  a  whole]  will  not  bear  the  interpretation 
traditionally  given  to  them — that  Jesus  was  formally  condemned  to 
death  as  a  direct  result  of  a  trial  by  the  highest  Jewish  '  tribunal ; 
(b)  that  '  the  Lucan  version,  which  implies  that  there  was  no 
night  trial,  nor  any  trial  at  all  in  a  real  sense,  but  only  a  preli- 
minary examination  of  the  prisoner,  and  (perhaps)  examination 
of  witnesses,  which  aimed  at  ascertaining  whether  sufficient  evi- 
dence was  forthcoming  to  condemn  the  prisoner  when  brought 
before  the  Roman  tribunal,'  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  Marcan  (and 
Matthaean)  one  ;  and  (c)  that  the  latter's  '  description  of  the  pro- 
ceedings'at  night  'was  derived  from  the  tradition  of  the  morning 
trial,'  independently'  '  preserved  by  Luke,  of  which  the  mention 
of  the  morning  meeting  (in  Matthew  and  Mark)  was  a  further 
reminiscence'  (pp.  60 f.,  the  latter  quotation  being  derived  from 
A.  H.  McNeile's  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.,  p.  397).  Mr.  Danby  also 
justly  observes  (62  f )  that  '  Luke's  version  is  not  a  casual  abbre- 
viation but  a  deliberate  emendation'  of  Mark's,  by  adherence  to  his 
other  and  more  trusted  source  (cf.  also  xviii.  32  in  contrast  to 
Mark  x.  33")  ;  and  this  although  '  the  Church  very  early  began  to 
lay  the  chief  blame  for  our  Lord's  death  on  the  Jewish  people 
(i  Thess.  ii.  14 f.  ;  cf.  Acts  xiii.  27  f.),  rather  than  on  Pilate,  and 
this  tendency  gradually  became  more  marked  until  it  reached  its 
culminating  point  in  the  Acta  Filati''  (the  apocryphal  Gospel  of 
Peter  marks  a  stage  in  the  process).  It  is,  then,  very  doubtful 
whether  the  Sanhedrin  actually  exceeded  its  powers  at  the  time, 
viz.  those  of  preliminary  investigation  in  a  criminal  issue  such  as 
this ;  or  whether,  in  any  case,  we  have  in  the  tract  Sanhedrin 
and  the  Talmud  generally  an  adequate  criterion  for  judging  the 
validity  of  its  methods  at  the  date  in  question  (75  f). 

On  the  whole  question  one  may  here  cite  Montefiore's  summing 
up  (i.  346).  '  That  there  was  any  meeting  of  the  full  Sanhedrin 
is  most  doubtful  :  doubtful  also  is  the  part  played  by  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  ;  but  that  the  Sadducean  priesthood  was  at  the 
bottom  of  the  arrest  and  of  the  "trial,"  and  that  the  result  of  this 
"  trial "  was  adequate  to  obtain  a  condemnation  from  Pilate,  can- 
not reasonably  be  doubted.' 

54.  Peter  had  followed  Mm  afar  off.  Peter  had  been  carried 
off  with  the  rest  bj'  sudden  panic,  but  soon  turned  back  and  fol- 
lowed at  some  distance. 


404  ST.  MARK  14.  55,  56.     Mk 

him   afar  off,  even  within,  into  the  court  of   the  high 
priest ;  and  he  was  sitting  with  the  officers,  and  warming 

55  himself  in   the  Hght  of  the  fire.     Now  the  chief  priests 
and  the  whole  council  sought  witness  against  Jesus  to 

56  put  him  to  death ;  and  found  it  not.     For  many  bare 
false  witness  against  him,  and  their  witness  agreed  not 

into  the  coiirt.  He  had  even  gone  within,  into  the  open 
court,  round  which  the  rooms  of  the  residence  were  built.  He 
owed  his  admission  to  the  fact  that  he  was  with  the  '  other  dis- 
ciple,' who  '  was  known  unto  the  high  priest'  (John  xviii.  15'). 

was  sitting' with  the  officers:  probably  with  the  Levitical 
guards,  who  had  brought  the  prisoner  in  and  were  now  seeking 
the  welcome  heat  of  the  fire.  For  the  spring  nights  are  cold  in 
Jerusalem,  and  especially  so  in  the  watch  precedini,'  sunrise. 

in  the  lig^ht  of  the  fire :  thus  the  more  exposed  to  recogni- 
tion. This  touch  is  peculiar  to  Mark.  While  Peter,  who  had 
made  his  way  within,  in  his  anxiety  '  to  see  the  end'  (Matt.  xxvi. 
58),  sits  there  by  the  charcoal  fire  (John  xviii.  r8),  which  had  been 
lit  '  in  the  midst  of  the  court '  (Luke  xxii.  55"!,  his  Master  stood 
before  the  Jewish  authorities  in  one  of  the  rooms  above  (cf.  66). 

55.  the  chief  priests  and  the  whole  council.  It  was,  there- 
fore, a  representative  meeting  of  the  great  national  council  in  some 
sense,  presided  over  by  Caiaphas.  In  this  view  Mark  -was  mis- 
taken :  see  above  on  verse  53.  See  further  xv.  i,  which  tends  to 
confirm  the  Lucan  account  that  it  was  in  the  iiioriiing  that  any  such 
hearing,  with  ivitnesses,  reallv  took  place  :  cf.  John  x\iii.  24,  28.  It 
is  natural  that  the  Petrine  story  of  the  Passion  should  not  be  com- 
plete or  clear  as  regards  the  more  or  less  secret  hearings  of  Jesus 
by  Jewish  authorities.  Here,  then,  Mark  would  be  more  liable  to 
confusion  in  telling  a  connected  story. 

sought  witness.  The  effort  was  to  prove  him  guilty  of  a 
capital  oflfence.  With  that  object  witnesses  had  been  got  together, 
prepared  to  give  testimony  to  the  desired  effect,  turning  some  of 
his  own  words  against  him. 

56.  many  bare  false  witness.  '  False,'  that  is,  in  its  effect, 
even  if  verbally  correct  up  to  a  point.  In  some  cases  at  least  it 
may  have  been  bond  fide  on  the  part  of  those  giving  it,  from  their 
standpoint.  Rut  its  essential  falsity  was  shown  by  the  inconsis- 
tencies in  it  as  a  whole. 

their  -witness  ag-reed  not  together.  There  were  many 
witnesses,  but  they  did  not  agree  in  their  evidence.  According 
to  the  Mosaic  Law  it  required  the  consentient  testimony  of  two 
witnesses  at  least,  in  order  to  establish  a  capital  charge  (Dcut. 
xix.  15). 


ST.  MARK  14.  67,  58-     Mk  405 

together.     And  there  stood  up   certain,  and  bare  false  57 
witness  against   him,  saying,  We  heard  him  say,  I  will  58 
destroy  this  « temple  that  is  made  with  hands,  and   in 
three  days   I   will  build  another  made  without  hands. 

"  Or,  sanctuary 


ST.  And  there  stood  up  certain.  The  most  specific  and 
dangerous  offence  against  Judaism  alleged  is  liere  cited  in  par- 
ticular. Matthew  states  that  it  was  spoken  to  b}'  two  witnesses 
(xxvi.  60).      But  again  they  failed. 

58.  We  heard  him  say,  I  will  destroy  this  temple  that  is 
made  with  hands,  and  in  three  days  1  will  build  another 
made  without  hands.  The  charge  was  that  he  had  made  a 
statement  in  disparagement  of  the  Temple,  and  as  if  he  would 
overthrow  it.  The  basis  of  this  was  a  genuine  saying  of  Jesus, 
reported  in  John  ii.  19  (out  of  its  original  chronological  setting), 
viz.,  '  Destroy  this  Temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it.'  This 
was  probablj'  a  warning  to  his  countrymen  of  the  inevitable 
result  of  their  rejection  of  his  message  of  radical  reformation  witli 
a  view  to  the  Kingdom  at  hand,  coupled  with  an  assurance  that, 
in  spite  of  this  self-induced  calamity,  the  Divine  counsel  of  grace 
would  yet  be  fulfilled  through  him  as  Messiah,  in  that  God  would 
forthwith  have  a  worthy  dwelling-place  in  earth — His  renewed 
People  indwelt  by  His  Spirit.  As  Montefiore  observes  {The 
Synoptic  Gospels,  i,  p.  300%  '  it  is  not  unlikely  that  Jesus,  like  a 
new  Jeremiah,  should  have  predicted  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple.  This  may  account  for  the  hostility  felt  towards  h'm, 
perhaps  even  for  the  revulsion  of  popular  feeling  (cf.  xv.  29  for 
this  charge  as  cast  at  him  in  scorn,  when  he  was  on  the  cross). 
It  is  in  accordance  with  his  prophetic  character,'  and  '  w-ilh  the 
spiritual  character  of  his  religion.'  This  is  borne  out  by  the  parable 
of  the  Vineyard  and  the  Unfaithful  Husbandmen  (see  Mark  xii. 
9-12  and  parallels\ 

The  above  saying  is  now  cited  in  a  garbled  form  by  these  two 
witnesses,  when  they  reported  him  to  have  said  '  I  will  destroj' ' 
(Mark  xiv.  58),  '  I  am  able  to  destroy '  (Matt.  xxvi.  61),  instead  of 
'  Destroy  .  .  .  .'  Quite  possibly,  however,  he  may  have  contrasted 
the  existing  temple,  as  one  'made  with  hands,'  with  another 
which  he  himself  was  to  build  'without  hands'  :  for  this  is  quite 
in  Jesus'  stj'le  of  thought,  nor  does  Matthew  call  these  witnesses 
'false  witnesses.'  But  in  the  animus  given  to  the  form  of  the 
saying,  bj'  the  change  in  its  opening,  laj'  an  element  of  false 
testimony  ;  and  in  giving  it  the  witnesses  did  not  even  agree. 

The  statement  of  tlie  two  is  given  in  a  briefer  form  by  Matthew, 


4o6  ST.  MARK  14.  59-61.     Mk 

;9, 6o  And  not  even  so  did  their  witness  agree  together.     And 

the  high  priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and  asked  Jesus, 

saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing  ?   what  is  it  which  these 

61  witness   against   thee?     But   he    held    his    peace,    and 


which  in  its  bluntness  may  be  also  a  more  original  one.  It  was 
meant  as  one  of  the  heaviest  accusations  that  could  be  brought  by 
one  Jew  against  another.  So  Stephen  was  afterwards  charged 
with  a  similar  offence  (Acts  vi.  13,  14).  Yet  it  begged  the  very 
point  in  question,  viz.  whether  Jesus  was  or  was  not  really  God's 
Anointed  One  {Messiah),  sent  to  raise  Israel's  religion,  whether 
as  exercised  in  the  Temple  or  otherwise,  to  a  higher  and  more 
spiritual  level.  For  it  was  part  of  Messianic  expectation  that  'a 
new  and  glorious  Jerusalem  would  be  built  in  the  Messianic  Age' 
(Tobit  xiii.  15  f.,  xiv.  4  ;  also  Rev.  xxi.  9-21  ;  cf.  Jlpoc.  Baruch, 
iv.  26,  xxxii.  4  ;  4£'sm,  vii.  26)  ;  and  '  according  to  Lev.  Rabbali. 
ix,  the  Messiah  will  himself  re-erect  the  Temple,'  ruined  in  a.  d.  70 
(Oesterley  and  Box,  The  Religion  and  Worship  of  the  Synagogue, 
222  f.).  On  this  view  of  the  matter,  it  was  not  so  much  a  disloyal 
or  irreverent  attitude  to  the  Temple,  as  a  virtual  Messianic  claim 
on  the  part  of  Jesus,  that  was  being  spoken  to  by  the  witnesses  : 
because  they  failed  to  establish  their  point  owing  to  discrepancy 
in  their  evidence  as  to  its  form,  the  high  priest  resorted  to  the 
legally  incorrect  method  of  trying  to  get  the  accused  to  witness 
against  himself  in  answer  to  a  leading  question.  Verse  61  does 
not,  then,  really  '  raise  a  totally  fresh  question  '  (Montefiore). 

59.  And  not  even  so  did  their  witness  agfree  together. 
Though  in  this  case  the  witnesses  agreed  in  the  main  point,  the 
general  effect  of  what  Jesus  had  said  (as  summarized  in  the  last 
verse),  yet  under  cross-examination  as  to  his  exact  meaning, 
whether  as  judged  by  his  actual  words  or  by  their  context,  dis- 
crepancy again  emerged  and  invalidated  their  evidence  for  the 
purpose  even  of  a  prima  facie  case  against  the  accused  ;  and  this 
was  what  was  needed  in  order  to  warrant  bringing  him  before  the 
Roman  Governor  on  a  capital  charge. 

60.  the  hig^h  priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and  asked  Jesns. 
Seeing  the  case  against  the  accused,  as  it  had  been  carefully  pre- 
pared, breaking  utterly  down,  and  chagrined  at  the  silence  of 
Jesus,  Caiaphas  wished  to  get  the  accused  himself  to  incriminate 
himself,  and  '  stood  up  in  the  midst'  (which  implies  a  meeting  of 
the  Sanhedrin)  in  order  to  extract  something  from  hini  to  this 
effect. 

61.  he  held  his  peace.  He  had  nothing  to  say,  seeing  the 
witnesses  had  refuted  themselves. 


ST.  MARK  14.  62.     Mk  407 

answered  nothing.  Again  the  high  priest  asked  him, 
and  saith  unto  him,  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
Blessed  ?     And  Jesus  said,  I  am  :  and  ye  shall  see  the  63 


Ag'ain  the  Tuigh.  priest  asked  him.  Caiaphas,  in  his  dis- 
appointment and  perplexity,  makes  a  second  attempt  to  draw 
Jesus  into  speech  that  might  compromise  him  and  help  out  the 
case.  He  asks  him  directly  (on  oath,  according  to  Matthew) 
whether  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah. 

Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ?  The  terms 
of  the  question,  '  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed,'  were  to 
Jewish  minds  and  ears  sj'nonyms  (see  Ps.  ii.  7,  Ixxxix  26f.\ 

The  name  '  the  Blessed  '  is  used  nowhere  else  in  the  N.  T.  in 
this  absolute  and  undefined  way  :  it  is  a  Jewish  circumlocution  cf 
reverence,  to  avoid  naming-  the  Divine  Name  outright.  Yet  it 
tends  also  perhaps  to  heighten  the  idea  of  the  majesty  of  God, 
and  sharpens  therefore  the  blasphemy  involved  in  any  unwarranted 
claim  to  be  in  the  relation  of  Son  to  God  in  anj'  unique  sense, 
such  as  attached  to  the  idea  of  Messiah  (cf.  'the  Holy  one,  blessed 
be  He,'  see  Rom.  i.  25,  ix.  5  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  31).  The  Sadducaic 
high  priest,  however,  would  not  mean  such  unique  Sonship  to 
God  in  the  Apocalyptic  sense  (involving  pre-existent  Sonship), 
though  Mark  may  so  take  it. 

62.  And  Jesus  said,  I  am.  Swete  is  probably  right  in  com- 
menting: 'To  the  direct  question  "Alt  thou  the  Christ  ?  "  solemnly 
put  to  him  on  oath  by  the  ecclesiastical  head  of  the  nation,  Jesus 
at  once  replies.'  But  his  exact  reply  is  left  doubtful  by  its  diver- 
gent forms  in  the  three  Synoptics.  Matthew  and  Luke,  differing 
as  they  do  in  words,  yet  agree  against  Mark  in  effect,  viz.  that 
Jesus  did  not  give  a  direct  explicit  affirmative  reply,  but  one 
which  simply  did  not  deprecate  the  suggestion  of  the  high  priest's 
words.  Luke  (who  makes  the  Sanhedrin  as  a  whole  repeat  the 
question)  has  '  you  say  that  I  am '  ;  while  Matthew  has  '  Thou 
hast  said  it,'  or  '  so  you  have  said  '  (cf.  xxvi.  25\  a  rather  non- 
committal form  of  acquiesence,  like  our  '  I  do  not  deny  it.'  One 
ma  J' compare  Jesus'  replj'  in  all  three  Gospels  to  Pilate's  'Art 
thou  the  King  of  the  Jews  ? '  viz.  '  Thou  sayest  it.'  Swete  quotes 
Dr.  Thayer  {Joiirttal  of  Bibl.  Literature,  xiii.  4ofr.)  as  shewing 
'that  the  balance  of  ancient  opinion  is  against'  the  view  that  this 
is  'an  idiomatic  affirmative,'  'and  that  the  words  mean  simply 
what  they  say,  while  the  context,  the  tone,  and  the  circumstances 
must  in  each  case  determine  the  exact  inference  which  is  to  be 
drawn  from  them.'  He  himself  adds  that  '  Mark  (or  rather  the 
tradition  he  follows)  has  seen  in  this '  reply  a  direct  affirmation, 
and  interprets  it  accordingly  ;  hut  it  is  possible  that  the  Lord  pur- 


4o8  ST.  MARK   14.  62.     Mk 

Son   of  man   sitting   at    the   right  hand  of  power,  and 


posely  preferred  the  vaguer  form.'  So  Origan  (on  Matt.)  says 
that  Jesiis,  'taking  the  word  out  of  the  mouth'  of  the  high  priest, 
'converts  it  into  a  refutation  of  the  latter  himself,  saying  "Thou 
iiast  said  so,"  that  thereby  he  might  appear  to  be  convicted,  not 
instructed'  (^ by  Jesus  himself),  on  the  point.  There  is,  however, 
a  difference  in  our  gospels  between  the  modes  of  verification  of  his 
claim  which  Jesus  foretells  as  to  be  vouchsafed  to  his  judges.  In 
Matthew  and  Luke  it  is  to  begin  'from  this  time  forth,' and  so  must 
be  understood  of  the  tokens  of  Jesus'  Messianic  power  in  and 
through  his  disciples,  which  came  into  view  (•  ye  shall  see,'  Matt.) 
forthwith,  in  the  events  in  the  early  part  of  Acts  (cf  the  idea  of 
Mark  xvi.  20).  But  in  Mark  it  is  not  so  specified,  but  may  refer 
rather  to  the  crisis  of  his  return  front  heaven  (to  which  Luke  has 
no  reference,  though  Matthew  retains  it)  at  some  widefined  'day' 
and  '  hour.'  The  latter  seems  more  in  line  with  other  references  to 
the  future  in  the  Synoptic  tradition,  as  distinct  from  the  Church's 
experience  of  what  actually  followed  on  the  triumph  of  his  foes. 

and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting^.  Matthew  and 
Luke  prefix  to  this  the  idea  '  Henceforth,'  that  is,  from  that  ver}' 
time  onwards.  Not  only  is  his  Messiahship  declared  in  the  figura- 
tive terms  of  Dan.  vii.  13,  expanded  by  a  phrase  from  Ps.  ex.  r, '  Sit 
thou  at  my  right  hand  ' ;  it  is  so  in  such  a  way  as  to  declare  also 
the  imminence  of  his  manifested  authority  and  hea\'enl3'  power. 
It  is  his  affirmation  of  future  exaltation,  when  the  arraigned  one 
will  be  the  Judge.  '  By  the  reference  to  well-known  prophecy 
respecting  the  Messiah,  Jesus  made  his  claim  as  bold  and  plain  as 
words  could  make  it'  i^W.  N.  Clarke). 

at  the  right  hand  of  power :  rather  '  of  the  Power,' 
a  reverential  Jewish  synonym  for  God.  In  the  moment  of 
supreme  challenge  to  his  consciousness  of  Messianic  .Sonship, 
Jesus  in  this  verse  most  clearly  uses  language  of  an  apocalyptic 
type,  as  fittest  to  body  forth  the  full  height  of  his  trust  in  the 
transcendent  destiny  which  the  Father  had  in  reserve  for  him, 
after  and  in  spite  of  the  mystery  of  seeming  defeat. 

What  precisely  was  in  his  mind  as  he  uttered  this  triumphant 
prophecy,  we  need  not  try  to  determine.  For  the  form  of  the 
language,  and  probably  of  his  own  outlook  as  he  used  it,  was  that 
of  sublime  poetry,  not  of  exact  knowledge  (cf  xiii.  32).  It 
expressed  his  faith  as  'the  Son  of  man,'  in  the  primary  sense  in 
which  he  was  wont  to  use  it  (viz.  as  representative  man,  in  rela- 
tion to  tlie  condition  of  humanity  according  to  the  Divine  idea 
and  purpose),  a  faith  rooted  in  and  springing  out  of  experienced 
spiritual  relations  with  God  as  his  Father.  Such  a  faith  guaranteed 
the  fulfilment  somehow  of  his  own    Messianic  vocation,  much  as 


ST.  MARK  14.  63,  64.     Mk  409 

coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.     And  the  high  priest  63 
rent  his  clothes,  and  saith,  What  further  need  have  we 
of  witnesses  ?     Ye   have   heard   the   blasphemy :    what  64 
think  ye?     And  they  all  condemned  him  to  be  ^  worthy 

*   Gr.  liablf  to 

the  resurrection  life  for  men  of  God  general!}'  was  thus  assured, 
as  set  forth  in  xii.  24,  i;6  f. 

63.  rent  his  clotlies.  Rending  one's  clothes  was  an  ancient 
sign  of  passionate  grief,  as  in  the  case  of  Jacob  (Gen  xxxvii.  29). 
It  also  became  the  sign  of  horror  (2  Kings  xviii.  371. 

What  further  need  have  ive  of  witnesses  ?  Caiaphas  sees 
his  \\a.y  clear  now,  all  trouble  in  securing  presentable  evidence 
gone,  and  the  prisoner  incriminated  by  his  own  confession. 

64.  the  hi  ispheiiiy :  i.  e.  not  in  the  strict  technical  sense  per- 
haps, but  in  a  virtual  one,  that  of  making  claims  derogatory  to  the 
Divine  Being  in  one  wny  or  another  ;  compare  ii.  7,  where  tiie 
like  charge  is  made  touching  Jesus'  claim  to  forgive  sins  on  earth 
as  'the  Son  of  man,'  the  Messianic  representative  of  humanitj'. 
'The  claim  to  be  Messiah,  without  any  of  the  ordinary  qualifica- 
tions of  a  Messiah— a  claim  admitted  by  a  solitary  prisoner  in  the 
full  power  of  his  enemies — must  have  seemed  a  presumptuous 
insolence,  a  kind  of  taking  God's  holy  promises  in  vain  '  (Montc- 
fiore,  i.  350). 

what  think  ye?  There  is  no  thought  of  inquiring  into  his 
Messianic  claims  :  they  were  assumed  to  be  unworthy  of  notice. 
Caiaphas  calls  for  the  vote  of  the  court  as  to  what  such  claims  by 
such  a  person  meriteil. 

they  all  condemned  him  to  he  worthy  of  death.  Legally 
the  Jewish  court  had  no  power  to  give  effect  to  a  sentence  of 
death.  That  was  reserved  for  the  Roman  authority.  But  possibly 
the  Jewish  court  could  declare  a  man  liable  according  to  their 
religious  law  to  the  death  penalty,  and  have  their  decision  con- 
firmed. The  penalty  for  blasphemy  according  to  the  Mosaic 
Law  was  death,  the  Jewish  mode  of  carrying  it  out  being  by 
stoning  (Lev.  xxiv.  16;  i  Kings  xxi.  10;  John  x.  30;  Acts  vii. 
58).  Luke  does  not  record  a  formal  verdict  b}'  the  Sanhedrin  ; 
and  Mark  may  here,  and  elsewhere,  conceive  the  matter  too 
broadly  as  an  act  of  the  whole  Sanhedrin,  as  representing  Judaism 
generally. 

'  It  would,'  as  Montefiore  says  (p.  344\  'be  enough  to  assume 
that  an  informal  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  or  of  some  of  its  lead- 
ing members  was  held,  at  which  Jesus  was  interrogated  and  per- 
haps even  some  evidence  taken  against  him.  It  was  considered 
that  enough  had  been  elicited  with  which  to  obtain  his  condem- 


4IO  ST.  MARK  14.  65.     Mk 

65  of  death.  And  some  began  to  spit  on  him,  and  to  cover 
his  face,  and  to  buffet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him, 
Prophesy :  and  the  officers  received  him  with  ^  blows  of 
their  hands. 

*  Or,  strokes  of  rods 

nation  from  the  Romnn  procurator.'  They  could  now  '  denounce 
Jesus  to  Pilate  as  a  false  Messiah^  (his  'blasphemy,'  in  their  eyes, 
being  simply  the  falsity  of  his  claim  to  the  sacred  function  of 
Messiahship),  and  so  the  further  proceedings  against  him  'would 
be  protected  and  guaranteed  against  any  popular  movement,  and 
upon  the  Roman  Governor  would  be  placed  the  responsibility  of 
the  condemnation  '  and  execution.  The  Christian  tradition,  how- 
ever, as  current  when  Mark  wrote,  shews  traces  of  the  desire  to 
emphasize  Jewish  responsibility  for  its  Lord's  death  ;  hence  per- 
haps the  heightening  features  of  the  trial  before  the  whole  San- 
hedrin  and  the  formal  sentence  of  death  pronounced  by  it  (see 
also  next  note). 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  in  the  anticipatory  description  of  his 
coming  passion  put  into  Jesus'  lips  in  x.  34,  Mark's  narrative 
seems  to  assign  all  mockery  to  'the  Gentiles'  rather  than  the 
Jews,  who  onl)'  hand  Jesus  over  to  them  ;  also  that  Luke  puts 
the  mocking  and  other  ill-treatment  by  subordinates  in  the  high 
priest's  house  before  the  trial,  and  has  nothing  of  the  sort  after  it. 
John  xviii.  13  ff.,  which  gives  a  preliminary  brief  interrogation 
before  Annas  ^wliich  helps  to  explain  the  two  lines  of  Synoptic 
tradition),  puts  any  violence  at  the  close  of  that  informal  hearing, 
which  ends  with  an  officer  smiting  Jesus.  This  might  well  be 
followed,  after  Annas  had  retired,  by  the  mockery  and  ill-use  of 
the  prisoner  at  the  hands  of  his  guards  which  Luke  relates  as 
occurring  during  the  night. 

65.  some  begran  to  spit  on  him.  Probably  this  did  not  occur 
at  the  point  here  reached  :  see  above.  The  '  some  '  who  indulged 
in  these  indignities  seem  to  be  in  Mark  and  Matthew  certain 
members  of  tlie  Sanhedrin.  But  in  fact  the  perpetrators  of  such 
insults  were  the  guards  who  had  Jesus  in  charge.  Spitting  was 
the  Jewish  way  of  shewing  utmost  contempt  and  abhorrence  (cf. 
Num.  xii.  i  (  ;  Dcut.  xxv.  g').  Seneca  notices  it  as  an  exceptional 
thing  that  a  man  was  found  to  spit  in  the  face  of  Aristides  the 
Just,  at  Athens,  when  he  was  brought  to  punishment. 

and  to  cover  his  face  :  preliminary  to  a  mock  testing  of  the 
prisoner's  '  supernatural  powers  '  in  what  follows. 

and  to  say  unto  him,  Prophesy.  Matthew  and  Luke  make 
the  meaning  of  this  clearer,  '  Prophesy  unto  us,  thou  Christ :  who 
is  he  that  struck  thee  ^Matt.  xxvi.  68)  ? ' 

and  the  officers:  or  'subordinates,'  in  contrast  to  certain  of 


ST.  MARK  14.  66-68.     P  411 

[P]  And  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  court,  there  cometh  66 
one  of  the  maids  of  the  high  priest ;  and  seeing  Peter  67 
warming  himself,  she  looked  upon  him,  and  saith,  Thou 
also  wast  with  the  Nazarene,  even  Jesus.     But  he  denied,  68 
saying,  ^  I  neither  know,  nor  understand  what  thou  sayest : 

*  Or,  /  neither  know,  nor  understand :  thou,  what  sayest  thou  ? 

the   Sanhedrin   above.     They   follow^    the   evil    example    of  their 
betters  (as  Mark  conceives  it),  but  in  their  own  way. 

received  Mm.  with  blows  of  their  hands :  or,  as  in  the 
margin  of  the  R.  V.,  '  with  stroltes  of  rods,'  i.  e.  when  he  was 
handed  over  to  their  charge  until  the  morning.  The  word 
means  either  strokes  with  sticks  or  slaps  in  the  face  with  the 
open  hand.  The  fact  that  this  form  of  abuse  seems  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  bufieting  points  to  the  former  (cf.  Isa.  i.  6). 
Of  verse  65  as  a  whole  Wood  writes  :  'This  scene  seems  to  be 
reflected  in  i  Pet.  ii.  20-23.  Some  trace  it  to  O.  T  influence  ; 
see  Mic.  v  ;   Isa.  1.  6,  liii.  3.' 

xiv.  66-72.  Peter'' s  Denials  (cf  Matt.  xxvi.  69-75  ;  Luke  xxii. 
56-62  ;  John  xviii.  25-27). 

66.  And  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  court.  '  An  oriental 
house  is  usually  built  around  a  quadrangular  interior  court,  into 
which  there  is  a  passage  (sometimes  arched)  through  the  front 
part  of  the  house,  closed  next  the  street  by  a  heavy  folding-gate 
with  a  smaller  wicket,  kept  by  a  porter'  (Robinson,  Harmony, 
225).  The  '  court '  or  court-yard  is  this  interior  area,  open  to  the 
sky,  and  in  the  present  case  no  doubt  paved.  Here  the  fire  had 
been  lit  by  the  servants,  and  here  Peter  stood,  while  his  Master 
was  before  the  high  priest  in  some  audience-room,  higher  than  the 
central  area  and  looking  into  it.  So  Peter  was  'beneath,'  as  Mark 
sa^'s,  and  '  without '  as  Matthew  puts  it. 

67.  seeingf  Peter  warming'  himself,  she  looked  upon  him. 
John  specifies  the  maid  'that  kept  the  door'  (xviii.  17  ;  cf.  Acts 
xii.  13).  The  portress,  as  it  seems,  had  noticed  Peter  when  he 
had  entered  with  the  others  ;  and  her  attention  had  been  attracted 
to  him  again  as  he  stood  in  the  light  of  the  fire.  Recognizing 
him,  she  charged  him  with  being  with  Jesus. 

68.  neither  know,  nor  understand.  The  double  negation  in 
Mark  reflects  the  precipitancy  and  embarrassment  of  the  denial. 
Peter  disowns  all  consciousness  even  of  what  she  meant.  The 
margin  of  the  R  V.  brings  out  still  more  the  energy  of  his  denial, 
'  I  neither  know,  nor  understand  ;  thou,  what  sayest  tliou  ? '  Or 
perhaps  one  may  render  it  still  better,  'I  neither  know  nor  gather, 
you  there,  wliat  you  are  talking  about.' 


412  ST.  MARK  14.  69-71.     P 

and  he  went  out  into  the  *  porch ;  ^and  the  cock  crew. 

69  And  the  maid  saw  him,  and  began  again  to  say  to  them 

^Q  that  stood  by,  This  is  one  of  them.     But  he  again  denied 

it.     And  after  a  little  while  again  they  that  stood  by  said 

to  Peter,  Of  a  truth  thou  art  o?ie  of  them  ;  for  thou  art 

^i  a    Galilsean.     But   he    began    to    curse,  and   to   swear, 

"  Gr.  forecourt 

^  Many  ancient  authorities  omit  and  the  cock  crew. 

into  the  porch.  His  uneasiness  made  him  change  his  posi- 
tion, from  the  brightness  of  the  fire  to  the  darkness  of  the  vestibule 
or  passage  that  led  from  the  street-door  to  the  court. 

and  the  cock  crew.  This  clause  is  omitted  by  some  of  the 
most  ancient  of  our  authorities.  It  is  a  gloss  due  to  '  the  second 
time  '  in  verse  72. 

69.  And  the  inaid  saw  him.  The  four  reports  differ  in  the 
particulars  of  Peter's  denials,  as  regards  persons  and  positions,  as 
well  as  the  terms  of  the  challenges  and  the  replies.  This  serves 
clearly  to  bring  out  the  independence  of  the  tradition  followed  by 
each,  and  so  confirms  the  main  fncts  themselves.  The  charge 
here  is  assigned  by  Mark  to  the  same  maid  ;  by  Matthew,  to 
'another  maid'  ;  by  Luke  to  'another  person';  while  John's 
version  is,  '  they  said  therefore  unto  him '  (xviii.  25^  If  we 
follow  Mark's  account,  the  maid  who  '  kept  the  door '  had 
returned  to  her  post  of  duty  in  the  porch,  and  repeated  her 
charge  there,  directing  the  attention  of  the  people  who  stood 
about  to  Peter. 

10.  Bnt  he  agfain  denied  it :  '  witli  an  oath  '  says  Matthew. 
And  after  a  little  while.     Luke  gives  the  interval    more 
explicitly  as  '  after  the  space   of   about  one  hour  '  (xxii.  59),  a 
fresh  sign  of  his  special  source's  accuracy  here. 

they  that  stood  by.  Luke  says  simply  '  another.'  John 
confirms  this  by  saying  that  the  accusation  was  made  in  the  most 
definite  terms  by  a  slave  related  to  Malchus,  who  supported  what 
had  been  said  by  others  with,  '  Did  not  I  see  thee  in  the  garden 
with  him  ? '  (xviii.  26). 

for  thou  art  a  Oalilsean.  'Thy  speech  betrayeth  thee,' 
says  Matthew.  The  people  of  Nortiiern  Palestine  had  certain 
provincialisms  of  speech  by  which  they  were  easily  distinguished 
from  those  of  Judaea. 

71.  he  began  to  curse,  and  to  swear.  To  'curse,'  that  is,  to 
call  down  an  anathema  upon  himself  if  his  denials  were  not  true 
(cf.  Acts  xxiii.  12).  Cauglit  at  his  weakest  nmment,  when  liis 
moral  courage   was  lowered   and    confused  by  surprise  and   the 


ST.  MARK  14.  72.     P  413 

I  know  not  this  man  of  whom  ye  speak.     And  straight-  73 
way  the  second  time  the  cock  crew.     And  Peter  called 
to  mind  the  word,  how  that  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Before 
the  cock  crow  twice,  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice.     *^  And 
when  he  thought  thereon,  he  wept. 

*  Or,  And  he  began  to  weep 

shock  of  a  dire  disappointment,  and  drawn  from  one  false  step  to 
another,  Peter  plunges,  desperate  and  reckless,  into  this  last 
depth  of  falsehood  and  disloyalty. 

72.  straig-litway  the  second  time  the  cock  crew :  better, 
'  a  second  time  a  cock  crew.'  '  Immediately,  while  he  yet  spake,' 
says  Luke  (xxii.  60).  It  was  at  the  very  moment  of  the  utterance 
of  his  third  denial,  the  oaths  and  curses  yet  upon  his  lips,  that 
Peter  heard  the  fateful  cock-crow  that  changed  all  (or  him. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  none  of  the  other  three  Gospels  has  'a 
second  time,'  any  more  tlian  '  twice '  in  Jesus'  prophecy,  as 
recorded  either  here  or  earlier  (parallel  with  verse  30).  This 
casts  doubt  on  the  Marcan  form  of  this  saying  (which  the 
'  Western  '  text  assimilates  to  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke  :  see 
Westcott  and  Hort,  Introduction,  §  323).  Probably,  however, 
'  a  second  time  '  is  an  authentic  touch  due  to  Peter's  vivid  memory 
of  this  intense  crisis,  viz.,  that  it  was  only  the  repetition  of  the 
strident  sound  of  the  cock's  crowing  which  brought  to  his  mind 
liis  Master's  warning  about  a  fall  ere  cock-crow.  If  so,  it  is  also 
possible  that,  just  as  the  wording  of  Jesus'  warning  has  been 
assimilated  to  this  accidental  feature  of  its  fulfilment,  so  there  has 
been  assimilation  at  an  earlier  stage  (i.  e.  in  the  oral  tradition  as 
known  to  all  the  Synoptists)  as  regards  another  like  feature,  viz. 
the  'thrice'  of  the  denial.  In  that  case  what  Jesus  had  actually 
said  was  simply,  '  Before  cock-crow  (i.  e.  before  another  day 
dawn)  thou  shalt  deny  me.'  Dr.  C.  H.  Mayo's  attempt  {The 
Journal  of  Tlieol.  Studies,  xxii.  367-70)  to  refer  the  cock-crowing 
to  the  Roman  watch  so  called  {Galhciniurn)  seems  groundless. 

called  to  mind.  For  the  time  he  had  forgotten  all  about 
Jesus'  warning.  Now  it  leaps  forth  into  his  recollection,  and 
breaks  him  down.  Luke  alone  notices  that '  the  Lord  turned,  and 
looked  upon  Peter'  (xxii.  61). 

when  he  thought  thereon  :  better  '  he  set  to  '  and  wept. 
This  has  the  support  of  a  usage  revealed  by  an  Egyptian  papyrus 
cited  in  J.  H.  Moulton's  N.  T.  Grammar,  and  may  be  what  is 
meant  by  the  old  Syrian  and  Latin  versions,  '  he  began  to  weep.' 
'And  he  burst  into  tears'  (Moflatt).  Other  suggested  renderings 
may  now  be  dismissed  from  account.     The  meaning  is  *  he  began 


414  ST.  MARK  15.  i.     Mk 

15      [Mk]  And  straightway  in  the  morning  the  chief  priests 

with  the  elders  and  scribes,  and  the  whole  council,  held 

a  consultation,  and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried  him  away, 

2  and  delivered  him  up  to  Pilate.     And  Pilate  asked  him, 

to  weep  with  all  his  might,' which  suits  alike  the  occasion  and  the 
man.  It  agrees  too  with  Luke's  version  of  the  matter,  '  and  going 
out  he  wept  bitterly.' 

XV.  1-15.  The  Trial  before  Pilate  (cf.  Matt,  xxvii  1-26  ;  Luke 
xxiii.  1-5,  13-25;  John  xviii.  28-40,  xix.  4-16). 

1.  straightway  in  the  inorning' :  i.e.  'immediately  morning 
came  '  (Moffatt).  Mark  conceives  that  the  *  trial '  already  described 
(which  really  only  followed  now,  as  Luke  rightly  records,  cf. 
John  xviii.  24)  was  in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  the  High  priest  ; 
and  that  there  too  (as  it  seems)  a  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin  was 
held  in  due  form  by  daylight,  in  order  to  regularize  and  confirm 
the  findings  reached  rather  informally  by  night,  and  to  plan  for 
their  sequel.      'The  chief  priests,'  says  Mark,   'with  the  elders 

and  scribes  and  the  whole  council '    The  hierarchy  certainly  took 

the  lead  in  the  proceedings  (cf.  11),  but  the  other  orders  were  at 
one  with  them  ;  and  what  followed  the  consultation  was  nomi- 
nally the  act  of  the  whole  council. 

But  throughout  the  whole  account  of  the  Trial  by  Pilate,  as  in 
that  by  the  Jews,  Mark  shews  the  effects  of  a  tendency  to  put  as 
much  blame  as  possible  on  the  latter  and  to  minimize  the  part 
taken  by  the  former  in  Jesus'  condemnation  and  death.  In 
various  respects  Luke's  narrative  is  again  more  accurate.  This 
applies  also  to  the  episode  of  Pilate's  trying  to  shift  the  decision 
of  a  case  which  had  elements  out  of  the  ordinary,  and  was  to  his 
eye  a  matter  of  domestic  differences  among  Jewish  religious 
parties,  on  to  Herod,  the  native  ruler  in  Galilee. 

bound  Jesus  .  .  .  Pilate.  The  feast  had  begun.  The  risk  of 
an  outbreak,  when  the  adherents  of  Jesus  gathered  in  their  num- 
bers, was  great.  The  Jewish  authorities,  knowing  there  was  no 
time  to  lose  if  they  were  to  escape  such  dangers,  took  instant 
action,  and  carried  eft"  their  prisoner  at  once  to  Pilate.  The 
Evangelists  give  only  general  indications  of  the  time.  But  as 
Roman  courts  did  not  meet  before  sunrise,  and  gave  no  judge- 
ment before  6  a.m.,  it  was  probably  5  or  6  a.m.  when  Jesus  was 
taken  to  the  Procurator.  John  states  that  he  was  led  into  '  the 
palace  '  or  praetorium  (xviii.  28).  It  is  difficult  to  say  whether 
the  place  in  question  was  the  palace  of  Herod  the  Great,  a  magni- 
ficent marble  structure  on  the  north  side  of  Zion,  occupied  for  the 
time  by  Pilate,  or  the  fortress  of  Antonia  on  the  north  side  of  the 
Temple :  see  note  on  verse  16. 

Fllate.     On   the   deposition   and  banishment  of  the  subject 


ST.  MARK  15.  2.     Mk  415 

Art   thou   the  King  of  the  Jews  ?    And   he  answering 

King  Archelaus  in  a.d.  6,  Judaea  was  united  to  Syria  and  put 
under  the  authority  of  its  governor  or  legate.  But,  subject  to  this 
overlordship,  it  was  ruled  immediately  bj'  a  'procurator'  sent 
from  Rome  fjosephus,  Antiq.  xvii.  13.  5,  xviii.  i.  i,  Jewish  War, 
ii.  8.  i).  The  procurator  lived  at  Caesarea  on  the  Sea  (Acts 
xxiii.  23  ;  Joseph.,  Jewish  War,  ii.  9.  2>,  but  came  up  to  Jerusalem 
at  the  Passover  season  to  keep  order.  The  fifth  in  the  series  of 
procurators  of  Judaea  was  Pontius  Pilate,  who  succeeded  Valerius 
Gratus  in  a.d.  25-26.  He  is  referred  to  not  only  in  the  narratives 
of  Passion  Week  but  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels  (Luke  iii.  i,  xiii.  i>, 
and  is  named  by  the  Roman  historian  Tacitus  as  the  procurator 
by  whom,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  Christ  had  'been  punished' 
{Annals,  xv.  44).  His  character  is  drawn  both  by  Josephus 
{Antiq.  xviii  ;  Jewish  War,  ii.  9.  2  ff.)  and  by  Philo  the  Jew  {De. 
Leg.  38).  The  latter  represents  him  as  given  over,  in  his  public 
life,  to  rapacity,  corruption,  ruthlessness,  and  all  manner  of  op- 
pression and  wrong.  The  N.  T.  indicates  incidentally  the  ruthless 
cruelty  of  his  rule  (Luke  xiii.  1).  It  represents  him  at  the  same 
time  as  having  something  of  the  sense  of  justice  proper  to  a 
Roman  judge,  though  vacillating  in  purpose  and  not  strong  enough 
to  give  effect  to  it  in  opposition  to  the  pressure  put  upon  him  by 
the  relentless  Jews.  How  far,  if  at  all,  this  picture  is  coloured 
by  a  wish  to  make  the  Jewish  authorities  the  more  responsible 
for  the  sentence  actually  passed  by  Pilate,  it  is  hard  to  say. 

2.  asked  Mm,  Art  thou  the  Kin^  of  the  Jews  ?  According 
to  John  xviii.  28  f.,  Pilate  met  the  Jews  outside  because  they  were 
too  scrupulous  to  enter  the  palace  of  the  heathen  ruler,  lest  they 
should  be  defiled  and  so  prevented  (on  the  chronology  of  that 
Gospel)  from  taking  part  in  the  coming  Passover.  After  this  first 
interview  with  the  Jewish  authorities  Pilate  entered  the  palace 
again  and,  summoning  Jesus  before  him  (John  xviii.  33),  put  to 
him  the  question  recorded  by  all  four  Evangelists.  How  did 
Pilate  come  to  put  such  a  question  ?  The  Jews  had  charged  Jesus 
with  making  regal  claims,  giving  the  Messianic  title  '  King  of  the 
Jews'  a  political  meaning.  This  accords  with  the  fuller  statement 
which  Luke  gives  of  the  accusation  as  one  essentially  of  sedition  : 
'We  found  this  man  perverting  our  nation,  forbidding  to  give 
tribute  to  Caesar  (so  twisting  his  reply  touching  the  Tribute- 
money,  xii.  17),  and  saying  that  he  himself  is  Christ  a  king' 
(xxiii.  2).  The  above  question  was  a  private  and  preliminary  one, 
and  its  form  (with  emphasis  on  the  '  thou  ')  suggests,  as  Westcolt 
thinks,  'a  feeling  of  surprise  on  the  part  of  the  questioner.'  The 
question  in  itself  was  one  involving  the  crime  of  '  treason  '  [tna- 
fesfas),  the  most  fatal  one  in  Roman  eyes. 

Thou  sayest:  an  acquiescent  reply  (see  Luke  xxii.  70  and 


4r6  ST.  MARK  15.  3-6.     Mk 

3  saith   unto   him,   Thou  sayest.     And  the   chief  priests 

4  accused  him  of  many  things.      And  Pilate  again  asked 
him,  saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing  ?  behold  how  many 

c  things  they  accuse  thee  of.     But  Jesus  no  more  answered 

anything ;  insomuch  that  Pilate  marvelled. 
6      [Mk]  Now  at  "■  the  feast  he  used  to  release  unto  them 

*  Or,  a  feast 

here),  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  not  a  distinct  affirmative  (which  the 
sequel  excludes),  like  '  So  thou  sa\'est.'  Moiitefiore  remarks 
(p.  361)  :  'Anyway  Jesus  did  not  deny  the  charge.  It  would  be 
consistent  both  with  his  practice  of  evasion  before  hostile  critics, 
and  with  his  own  spiritualized  conception  of  the  Messiahship  and 
Kingship,  if  he  neither  affirmed  nor  denied.  He  was  not  the 
King  of  the  Jews  in  Pilate's  sense  of  king  ;  yet  he  was,  or  was 
to  be,  their  king  in  another  sense  ;  and  even  in  this  dark  hour, 
his  faith  in  this  Kingship,  to  which  God  had  appointed  him,  did 
not  succumb  or  fade  away.'  The  Fourth  Gospel  says  that  Jesus 
first  asked  Pilate  why  he  put  such  a  question  to  him,  and  then 
explained  in  what  sense  he  claimed  to  be  King  and  what  manner 
of  kingdom  his  was  (xviii.  34-38). 

3.  the  chief  priests  accused  him  of  many  things.  A  highly 
condensed  account.  The  Jewish  officials  had  remained  without, 
and  were  gradually  joined  by  the  mob  (^I.uke  xxiii.  4).  After  the 
brief,  inconclusive  inquiry  apart,  Pilate  comes  forth  again,  and 
gives  the  Jews  to  understand,  as  Luke  ^xxiii.  4I  and  John  (xviii. 
38)  tell  us,  that  he  found  no  fault  in  the  accused.  This  provokes 
a  fresh  burst  of  accusations  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  who  clamour 
with  furious  insistence  about  his  disloyal  action  from  the  Roman 
standpoint,  in  stirring  up  the  people,  '  teaching  throughout  all 
Judaea,  and  beginning  from  Galilee  even  unto  this  place'  (Luke 
xxiii.  5). 

4.  Pilate  again  asked  him.  His  conviction  of  the  innocence 
of  Jesus  being  perhaps  somewhat  shaken  by  these  new  and  serious 
charges,  Pilate  furtlier  questions  him,  but  elicits  no  reply.  The 
governor  marvels  at  the  tranquil,  dignified  silence  maintained  by 
Jesus  in  the  face  of  the  fierce  storm  of  accusations  and  the  danger 
of  the  charge  against  him.  He  is  embaTassed  ;  and,  as  Luke 
suggests,  he  catches  at  the  mention  of  Galilee  as  the  scene  of  the 
first  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  asks  more  particularly  about  this,  and 
learning  from  ihe  accusers  themselves  that  Jesus  was  'of  Herod's 
jurisdiction,'  lie  sends  him  on  to  that  prince,  he  being  in  Jerusalem 
for  the  Feast.      But  Herod  sent  him  back  to  Pilate    Luke  xxiii. 

6-I2\ 

6.  ITow   at  the   feast    he    used    to    release   nnto   them  one 


ST.  MARK  15.  7.     Mk  417 

one  prisoner,  whom  they  asked  of  him.     And  there  was  7 
one  called  Barabbas,  lying  bound  with  them   that  had 


prisoner.  The  reference  is  to  the  Passover  feast,  as  John  ex- 
plains (xviii.  39).  Of  the  custom  itself  nothing  is  known  beyond 
what  is  stated  here.  There  is  no  mention  of  it  in  the  later  Jewish 
writings. 

whom  they  asked  of  him:  rather  'whom  they  begged  oflT,' 
The  point  of  the  concession  lay  largely  in  the  fact  that  the  selec- 
tion of  the  prisoner  was  left  to  the  Jews  themselves.  Pilate's 
second  expedient  for  relief  was  to  take  advantage  of  this  custom. 

Comparing  the  several  narratives,  we  see  that,  when  Jesus  was 
sent  back  by  Herod,  Pilate  called  the  Jewish  authorities  and  the 
people  together  again  (Luke  xxiii.  13),  and  seated  himself  upon 
the  judgement-seat  (Matt,  xxvii.  19).  with  the  intention  of  declar- 
ing Jesus  guiltless  and  ending  the  trial.  It  was  the  custom  for 
the  procurator,  when  he  was  to  give  his  judgement  in  a  trial,  to 
take  his  seat  on  a  movable  tribunal.  In  the  present  case,  as  we 
learn  from  John,  this  tribunal  was  set  up  'at  a  place  called  The 
Pavement,  but  in  Hebrew,  Gabbatha  '  (xix.  i3\  i.e.  outside  the 
palace,  which  the  Jews  could  not  enter  at  this  season.  Here 
Pilate  formally  declares  that  neither  he  nor  Herod  found  any  fault 
in  the  accused,  and  announces  his  intention  to  scourge  and  then 
release  him.  His  idea  probably  was  to  set  Jesus  free  under  the 
custom  referred  to.  He  thought  in  this  way  not  only  to  satisfy 
his  own  sense  of  justice,  but  to  please  the  people  by  releasing  a 
prisoner  whom  he  imagined  they  would  value,  and  to  propitiate 
the  Sanhedrin  by  chastising  Jesus.     But  he  pleased  no  one. 

7.  one  called  Barabhas  :  better  '  he  who  was  called  Barabbas,' 
implying  that  he  was  at  the  time  a  notorious  person.  *  Barabbas,' 
says  Montefiore,  '  is  supposed  to  mean  "Son  of  the  Father,"  that 
is,  "of  the  Master"— the  Teacher  (cf.  M.itt.  xxiii.  gV  Was  he 
the  son  of  a  known  Rabbi  ? '  We  have  names  of  this  type  in 
the  Talmud  ;  and  Jerome  says  that  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  had  here  'Son  of  the  Master.'  Of  this  Barabbas  noth- 
ing is  known  beyond  what  we  gather  from  the  Go-pels,  namely, 
that  he  was  of  the  desperado  or  robber  type  (John  xviii.  40)  ; 
that  he  had  stirred  up  a  faction  riot  in  the  cit}'  and  had  been 
guilty  of  murder  (Mark  xv.  7  ;  Luke  xxiii.  19^  ;  and  that  at  the 
time  he  was  lying  a  prisoner  along  with  his  fellow  rioters,  charged 
with  faction  and  murder.  He  was  possibly  one  of  those  men  of 
violent  methods  who  often  joined  hands  with  the  uncompromising 
patriots  known  as  the  party  of  the  Zealots,  in  outbreaks  against 
the  Roman  rule,  and  gave  constant  trouble  to  the  Roman  gover- 
nors. Barabbas  was  guilty  of  much  the  kind  of  crime,  that  of 
sedition,  which  the  Sanhedrin  tried  to  fasten  unjustly  upon  Jesus. 

E  e 


4i8  ST.  MARK   15.  8-14.     X^k 

made    insurrection,  men  who   in    the   insurrection  had 

8  committed  murder.     And  the  multitude  went   up   and 
began  to  ask  him  to  do  as  he  was  wont  to   do  unto 

9  them.    And  Pilate  answered  them,  saying.  Will  ye  that 
10  I  release  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?     For  he  per- 
ceived that  for  envy  the  chief  priests  had  delivered  him  up. 

"  But  the  chief  priests  stirred  up  the  multitude,  that  he 

12  should  rather  release  Barabbas  unto  them.     And  Pilate 
again  answered  and  said  unto  them,  What  then  shall  I 

13  do  unto  him  whom  ye  call  the  King  of  the  Jews?     And 

14  they  cried  out  again,  Crucify  him.     And  Pilate  said  unto 


8  f.  the    multitude  .  .  .  'beg'an    to   ask    him  .  .  .      When    the 

people  came  to  claim  their  usual  right,  Pilate  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity to  try  to  get  out  of  his  dilemma,  by  suggesting,  '  Will  ye 
that  I  release  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews  ? '  The  accent  of 
Pilate's  question  is  probably  *  a  mixture  of  pity  and  contempt. 
"  Shall  I  release  this  harmless  simpleton  who  apparently  calls 
himself  your  king  ?  "  '     ( Holtzmann.) 

10.  This  is  quite  a  likely  motive  of  Pilate's  action.  He  may 
have  been  really  impressed  by  Jesus.  Further,  his  conduct  all 
along  might  be  determined  by  a  wish  to  play  with  the  Jewish 
rulers,  up  to  the  point  where  his  own  interest  began  to  come  in. 

Pilate's  appeal  to  the  people  was  defeated  by  the  counter- 
appeal  of  the  chief-priests.  We  are  not  told  how  the  people 
were  induced  to  prefer  Barabbas.  There  may  have  been  a  secret 
sympathy  with  the  braves  on  which  the  chief  priests  contrived  to 
play.  Further  the  mere  fact  of  Jesus'  arrest  by  his  enemies  would 
tend  to  discredit  his  claims  to  Messiahship  in  their  eyes. 

12-14.  Many  scholars  not  unnaturally  suspect  certain  things 
in  this  dialogue  between  the  haughty  Roman  Governor  and  the 
Jewish  crowd,  as  being  coloured  in  the  course  of  tradition  among 
those  inclined  to  dissociate  Jesus'  death  from  Roman  action  and 
to  lay  it  entirely  at  the  door  of  the  Jews,  whose  hostility  to  the 
early  Christians  increased  the  unfavourable  light  in  which  the 
latter  tended  to  view  the  part  played  by  national  Judaism  in  the 
crime  of  the  Cross. 

13,  Crucify  him.  This  dreadful  cry,  calling  for  a  penalty 
characteristically  Roman  in  its  unfeeling  hardness,  where  non- 
Romans  were  concerned,  and  one  reserved  for  the  worst  criminals 
in  their  eyes,  is  one  of  the  touches  the  historicity  of  which  has 
been  questioned,  yet  on  no  really  conclusive  ground. 


ST.  MARK  15.  15,  16.     Mk  419 

them,  Why,  what  evil  hath  he  done?     But  they  cried 
out   exceedingly,   Crucify   him.     And  Pilate,  wishing  to  15 
content  the  multitude,   released  unto   them    Barabbas, 
and  delivered  Jesus,  when  he  had  scourged  him,  to  be 
crucified. 

And  the  soldiers  led  him  away  within  the  court,  which  16 

15.  Pilate,  wishing  to  content  the  mtiltittide:  W. 'satisfy,' the 
phrase  being  a  Latin  idiom  taken  up  into  late  Greek  (cf.  Jer.  xlviii. 
30  ill  LXX ).  Their  will,  working  on  his  irresolution,  beats  down 
the  governor's  last  scruples,  and  extorts  from  him  the  fatal  order. 
The  Fourth  Gospel,  with  its  more  detailed  account  here,  pictures 
fully  how  Pilate  struggled  against  the  meshes  closing  about  him. 
Certain  features  in  that  picture,  notably  how  he  would  have  had 
the  Jews  take  Jesus  away  and  themselves  aiicify  hint ;  how  at  last 
they  declared  the  real  cause  of  their  offence  with  him  to  be  his 
claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ;  how  the  judge,  the  more  afraid  when 
he  heard  this,  took  Jesus  again  within  and  interrogated  him  in 
private — all  these  are  very  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  general 
probabilities  of  the  case  ;  and  this  must  react  also  on  our  estimate 
of  the  associated  account  of  the  motive  finally  reconciling  him  to 
set  aside  his  own  scruples,  viz.  the  menacing  cry,  '  Thou  art  not 
Caesar's  friend'  (John  xix.  1-14). 

At  this  point  Matthew  records  how  Pilate  'took  water  and 
washed  his  hands  before  the  multitude'  (xxvii.  24),  an  incident 
which  is  reported  only  by  him.  It  was  a  Jewish  ceremony  (Deut. 
xxi.  6;  Josephus,  Antiq.  iv.  8.  16),  symbolical  of  guiltlessness 
in  the  matter  of  shedding  blood.  It  was  also  the  custom  for 
heathen  judges,  when  about  to  pass  sentence,  to  protest  their 
innocence  of  the  blood  of  the  person  whom  they  were  to  condemn 
to  death  (see  Meyer  on  Matt,  xxvii.  24"). 

when  he  had  scourged  him.  This  particular  word,  another 
Latinism,  is  found  in  the  N.T.  only  here  (and  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Matthew).  Roman  scourging  inflicted  suffering  so  terrible 
that  often  the  victim  died  under  it.  Such  scourging  was  usual 
before  crucifixion  (Josephus,  Jevbish  War,  ii.  14.  9,  v.  11.  i). 

XV.  16-20.  The  Mockery  of  the  Soldiers  (cf.  Matt,  xxvii.  27-31; 
John  xix.  2,  3).     This  incident  is  omitted  by  Luke. 

16.  the  soldiers:  i.e.  'of  the  governor'  (Matt,  xxvii.  27I 
These  Roman  soldiers  iiad  to  see  to  the  execution  of  the  sen- 
tence :  and  Jesus  is  henceforth  at  their  mercy.  They  consisted 
probably  of  a  few  men  with  a  centurion,  and  formed  part  of  the 
band  or  cohort  stationed  in  the  castle  of  Antonia  (Acts  xxi.  31). 
within  the   court.     The  scourging,    then,    had   taken   place 


420     ■  ST.  MARK  15.  17.     Mk 

is  the  *  Praetorium ;    and  they  call  together   the  whole 
17  ^band.     And  they  clothe  him  with  purple,  and  plaiting 

*  Or,  palace  ^  Or,  cohort 


outside,   in  front  of  the  palace.     Jesus  in  now  brought  into  the 
courtyard. 

■which  is  (the)  Praetorium  :  or 'that  is,  Headquarters.'  The 
Greek  word,  based  on  the  Latin,  is  used  of  the  tent  or  head- 
quarters of  a  commander  in  a  Roman  camp.  But  in  the  Gospels 
and  Acts  it  means  the  official  residence  of  a  governor  (cf.  Acts 
xxiii.  35).  Opinion  is  divided,  as  we  have  said,  on  the  subject  of 
the  place  in  view  here.  Some  hold  that  the  palace  of  Herod  tlie 
Great  was  used  by  the  Roman  procurator  as  his  official  residence 
for  the  time.  Josephus  tells  us,  indeed,  that  it  was  so  used  by 
Florus  {Jewish  War,  ii.  14.  8).  Others,  pointing  to  the  fact  that 
Herod  Antipas,  the  native  ruler  in  Galilee,  was  himself  (according 
to  Luke)  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time,  and  to  the  proceedings  in  con- 
nexion with  the  trial,  conclude  that  the  Praetorium  was  connected 
with  the  fortress  of  Antonia.  See  further  Swete  for  this  view  as 
the  more  probable.  Blass,  however,  regards  the  whole  clause 
'  which  is  (the)  Praetorium  '  as  based  on  a  mistaken  view  of  the 
Greek  aide,  which  means  simply  the  'courtyard'  of  the  place 
where  Pilate  was  staying.  If  so,  it  would  be  a  later  gloss.  But, 
as  Bacon  observes  (/s  Mark  a  Roman  Gospel  ?  p.  56),  the  clause 
'need  not  be  a  "mistranslation,"'  but  'may  merely  serve  for 
closer  determination.' 

the  whole  hand.  Tlie  word  '  band  '  is  of  somewhat  uncertain 
application.  It  may  mean  a  tnaniplc,  which  ^vas  the  third  of  a 
cohort  and  consisted  nominally  of  200  men.  But,  as  the  '  band  ' 
is  said  to  have  a  chiliarch  or  '  chief  captain '  (John  xviii.  la  ; 
Acts  xxi.  31),  it  is  supposed  to  have  the  sense  of  cohort  in 
the  N.  T. 

17.  with  purple:  or,  as  Matthew  gives  it,  'a  scarlet  robe.' 
Jesus  had  been  stripped,  in  order  to  be  scourged.  But  whether 
his  garments  had  been  put  on  again  when  he  was  brought  back 
into  the  court,  Mark  does  not  note.  Now  Pilate's  soldiers,  imi- 
tating the  mockery  practised  by  Herod  and  his  men  when  they 
sent  Jesus  back  'arrayed  in  gorgeous  apparel'  f  Luke  xxiii.  ir), 
put  upon  him  the  royal,  or  rather  Imperial  'purple,'  perhaps 
really,  as  Matthew  puts  it,  'a  red  cloak,'  i.e.  the  ordinary  military 
cloak.  This  they  did  in  ridicule  of  his  kingly  pretensions.  There 
is  no  need  to  look,  as  some  have  done  recently,  beyond  this 
obvious  motive,  for  a  further  meaning  of  a  folk-lore  or  pagan 
religious  character  in  this  mockery. 


ST.  MARK   15.  18-21.     Mk  421 

a  crown  of  thorns,  they  put  it  on  him  ;  and  they  began  18 
to  salute  him,  Hail,  King  of  the  Jews  !    And  they  smote  19 
his  head  with  a  reed,  and  did  spit  upon  him,  and  bowing 
their   knees    worshipped    him.      And   when    they   had  20 
mocked  him,  they  took  off  from  him  the  purple,  and  put 
on  him  his  garments.     And  they  lead  him  out  to  crucify 
him. 

And  they  »  compel  one  passing  by,  Simon  of  Cyrene,  21 
coming    from    the    country,    the    father    of  Alexander 

*  Gr.  impress 

a  crown  of  thorns :  in  derisive  imitation  of  the  laurel  wreath, 
the  badge  of  victor^',  worn  at  times  by  the  Roman  emperors  in 
token  of  military  distinction  or  on  festal  occasions.  This  wreath 
was  made  of  the  twisted  spines  of  some  sort  of  thorn,  probably 
the  nabk  tree. 

18.  to  salute  him.  Matthew  notices  that  a  reed  was  put  into 
his  right  hand  (xxvii.  29  i,  to  represent  a  sceptre  :  cf.  the  next 
note. 

19.  smote  his  head  with  a  reed.  Allen  quotes  a  close  Tal- 
mudic  parallel  to  this.  The  mock  homage  offered  him  was  accom- 
panied (or  followed,  as  in  Matthew)  by  blows  and  insults  When 
the  soldiers  had  had  enough  of  horse-play  and  brutality,  they  took 
off  the  red  cloak  and  clad  Jesus  again  in  his  own  garments.  Com- 
pare the  prediction  in  chap.  x.  34. 

20.  they  lead  him  out  to  crucify  him.  It  is  not  possible  to 
determine  the  route  to  the  place  of  crucifixion.  Tradition  defines 
it  as  the  way  called  the  Vin  Dolorosa,  running  across  the  city 
from  the  fortress  of  Antonia  to  the  Holy  Sepulchre  But  the 
name,  if  not  the  tradition  itself,  appears  to  be  later  than  the  twelfth 
century. 

XV.  21-32.  The  incidents  on  the  way  to  and  at  the  Cross  (cf.  Matt, 
xxvii.  32-44  ;  Luke  xxiii.  26-38;  John  xix.  16-24). 

21.  they  compel  one  passing'  by:  better  '  impress,'  as  in  the 
R.V.  margin.  It  is  a  word  of  foreign  origin,  used  in  particular  of 
the  couriers  of  the  kings  of  Persia.  It  came  to  be  applied  to  any 
kind  of  compulsory  service  (Matt.  v.  41V 

Simon  of  Cyrene:  i.e.  in  North  Africa.  We  learn  from 
Josephus  that  a  body  of  Jews  settled  there  in  the  time  of 
Ptolemy  I  {Cont.  A  p.  ii.  4,  Antiq.  xiv.  7.  2).  In  the  N.T.  there 
are  other  references  to  Jews  there  (Acts  ii.  10,  vi.  9.  xiii.  i\ 

the  father  of  Alexander  and  Sufus.     Mark  alone  describes 


42  2  ST.  MARK  15.  22,  23.     Mk 

and  Rufus,   to  go  with  them,  that  he  might  bear  his 

22  cross.      And  they  bring  him  unto  the  place  Golgotha, 

23  which  is,  being  interpreted,  The  place  of  a  skull.     And 
they  offered    him   wine   mingled  W'ith  myrrh  :    but  he 

Simon  thus  by  his  sons.  We  infer  from  the  statement  that  thej' 
became  persons  of  some  prominence,  at  least  in  the  locality  for 
which  Mark's  Gospel  was  first  written,  whether  Antioch  or  Rome. 
That  Paul  salutes  a  Rufus  and  his  motlier  in  Rom.  xvi.  13  suits 
either  hypothesis,  since  he  had  presumably  met  them  elsewhere, 
and  quite  possibly  at  Antioch  (see  Acts  xi.  20). 

that  lie  might  bear  his  cross.  Plutarch  says  that  it  was  the 
custom  to  make  the  condemned  man  carry  his  own  cross,  or  at 
least  one  of  its  two  beams.  John  mentions  that  Jesus  '  went  out, 
bearing  the  cross  for  himself  (xix.17) ;  cf.  note  on  verse  21  above. 
It  appears,  therefore,  that  Jesus  bore  the  cross  at  least  to  the  city 
gate.  Then  his  strength  gave  way,  and  Simon  was  compelled  to 
relieve  him  of  the  burden.  At  this  point  Luke  introduces  the 
incident  of  women  of  Jerusalem  bewailing  Jesus  (xxiii.  27-31),  and 
Jesus'  striking  \vords  in  response. 

22.  the  place  Golgotha,  which  is,  being  interpreted,  The 
place  of  a  skull.  Luke  says  '  the  place  which  is  called  The 
Skull,'  omitting  the  Aramaic  word  Golgotha.  John  is  more  pre- 
cise, 'the  place  called  The  place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in 
Hebrew  Golgotha.'  This  'place  of  a  skull 'was  rendered  locus 
Calvariae  in  the  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate.  We  owe  the  word  Cal- 
vary to  the  Old  English  versions  following  the  Vulgate.  W^-clif, 
e.  g.,  gives  '  the  place  of  Calvarie.'  The  name  Golgotha  indicates 
that  the  place  was  a  bare,  skull-shaped  knoll  or  mound.  It  seems 
to  have  been  well  known.  The  Gospels  indicate  that  it  was  out- 
side the  city,  yet  near  it  (John  xix.  20),  and  having  a  garden  by  it 
(Johnxix.  41).  But  its  exact  position  cannot  be  determined.  The 
traditional  Mount  Calvary  is  within  the  city.  It  has  been  placed 
on  the  west  bank  of  the  Kidron,  north  of  St.  Stephen's  Gate  (so 
Dr.  Thomson);  on  the  hill  north-cast  of  Herod's  Gate  (Sir  C. 
Wilson,  &c.)  ;  on  the  hill,  without  the  present  wall,  north-east  of 
the  Damascus  Gate;  on  the  'Skull  Hill'  or  'Grotto  Hill,' near 
the  Damascus  Gate,  above  the  grotto  of  Jeremiah.  The  last  is 
perhaps  the  most  likely  suggestion,  and  fits  fairly  with  the  site 
pointed  out  as  early  as  the  end  of  the  third  century,  on  the  witness 
of  Eusebius  iOnomasticon^,  viz.  'to  the  N.  of  Mount  Zion.' 

23.  offered  him  wine  mingled  with  myrrh  :  in  keepingwith 
a  merciful  custom,  in  order  to  stupefy  and  so  ease  the  coming 
agony.  Matthew  has  'wine  mingled  with  gall'  (xxvii.  34),  a 
description  perhaps  coloured  by  Ps.  Ixix.  21,  cf.  Lam.  iii.  15. 
There  was  a  strong  tendency  to  look  for  '  fulfilments  'of  Messianic 


ST.  MARK  15.  24-26.     Mk  423 

received  it  not.     And  they  crucify  him,   and  part   his  24 
garments  among  them,  casting  lots  upon  them,  what  each 
should   take.     And    it   was    the   third   hour,   and   they  25 
crucified  him.     And  the  superscription  of  his  accusation  26 

forecasts,  both  in  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms,  in  the  experiences 
of  the  Passion.  This  tendency  may  even  have  added  hght  touches 
to  the  Evangelic  tradition,  especially  in  Matthew.  Jesus  refused 
the  potion,  after  discovering  its  nature  by  a  sip,  according  to  Mat- 
thew (xxvii.  34) — a  frankly  human  touch. 

24.  part  his  garments.  The  clothing  of  the  condemned  was 
the  perquisite  of  tlie  soldiers  on  duty  at  executions. 

casting'  lots.  Possibly  they  had  dice  with  them  for  their 
musement.  The  Fourth  Gospel  makes  a  distinction  here.  It 
speaks  of  the  '  garments,'  as  distinguished  from  the  '  coat,'  as 
being  divided  into  four  parts,  one  for  each  man  in  the  quaternion 
of  soldiers.  This  they  might  do  by  loosening  the  seams.  But  the 
'  coat '  or  *  tunic,'  which  was  woven  of  one  piece,  was  not  divided, 
but  assigned  in  whole  to  one  by  lot  (xix.  23,  24). 

25.  it  was  the  third  hour:  i.  e.  9  a.m.  (cf.  Acts  ii.  15,  and 
verse  33  below).  Mark  alone  gives  this  as  the  time.  The  Fourth 
Gospel  says  it  was  '  about  the  sixth  hour '  when  Pilate  brought 
Jesus  out  and  took  his  seat  for  judgement  (xix.  14^  Various 
explanations  of  this  apparent  discrepancy  have  been  given.  The 
most  probable  is  the  supposition  that  the  two  writers  here  follow 
different  modes  of  reckoning  time,  the  latter  having  in  view  a 
division  of  time  like  our  own,  which  would  make  the  'sixth  hour' 
about  6  a.m.  But  this  has  been  somewhat  shaken  b}'  recent 
research,  especially  by  Ramsay  (Expositor,  iv.  vii,  p.  216  ;  v.  iii, 
p.  457).  Others  assume  a  natural  corruption  in  the  single  letters 
used  as  numerals,  viz.  F  for  r  (so  Jerome).  In  any  case,  of  the 
two  statements  Mark's  is  the  more  definite. 

26.  the  superscription  of  his  accusation.  It  was  customary 
to  have  the  cause  of  condemnation  inscribed  on  a  tablet,  which 
was  fastened  to  the  prisoner  or  borne  before  him  as  he  was  led  to 
execution.  This  was  afterwards  fastened  to  the  cross  itself,  above 
the  sufferer's  head.  There  were  several  kinds  of  crosses :  the 
St.  Andrew's  cross,  in  the  shape  of  the  letter  X  ;  St.  Anthony's 
cross,  also  known  as  the  Egyptian  or  the  Greek  cross,  with 
the  form  T ;  and  the  Latin  cross,  which  was  of  the  shape  +. 
The  terms  of  the  record  [iHtdus),  as  '  inscribed '  rather  than 
'  written  over,'  are  given  with  certain  variations  in  the  Gos- 
pels; but  in  each  the  significant  words  'the  King  of  the  Jews,' 
which  indicated  the  real  cause  of  offence,  are  found.  From 
John  (xix.  20)  we  learn  that  this  title  was  written  not  only  in  the 
official  Latin,  but  also  in  Hebrew  and  Greek. 


424  ST.  MARK  15.  27-32.     Mk 

27  was  written  over,  the  king  of  the  jews.  And  with 
him   they  crucify  two  robbers  ;  one  on  his  right  hand, 

29  and  one  on  his  left.'*'  And  they  that  passed  by  railed 
on  him,  wagging  their  heads,  and  saying,  Ha !  thou  that 
destroyest  the  ^  temple,  and  buildest  it  in  three  days, 
30,31  save  thyself,  and  come  down  from  the  cross.  In  like 
manner  also  the  chief  priests  mocking  hiin  among  them- 
selves with  the  scribes  said,  He  saved  others  ;    ^  himself 

32  he  cannot  save.  Let  the  Christ,  the  King  of  Israel,  now 
come  down  from  the  cross,  that  we  may  see  and  believe. 
And  they  that  were  crucified  with  him  reproached  him. 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  insert  verse  28  Av.d  the  scripture  was 
fiilfiUed,  -tvhich  saith,  And  he  was  reckoned  with  transgressors. 
See  Luke  xxii.  37 

**  Or,  sanctuary 

'  Or,  can  he  not  save  himself? 

27.  two  robbers :  or,  according  to  Luke,  'malefactors.'  Not 
ordinary  '  thieves,'  but  rather  highwaymen. 

28.  The  A.V.  introduces  here  the  verse,  'And  the  scripture 
was  fulfilled,  which  saith,  And  he  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors.' This  shews  the  tendency  referred  to  in  the  note  on 
verse  23  The  quotation  from  Isa.  liii.  12  is  given  by  Luke  at  an 
earlier  stage  (xxii,  37). 

29.  they  that  passed  by  .  .  .  wagging'  their  heads :  comp. 
the  phrasing  of  Lam.  ii.  15.  The  first  half  of  the  verse  has  a 
general  likeness  of  idea  to  Ps.  xxii.  7,  but  the  language  seems 
independent,  save  for  the  phrase  '  shake  the  head.' 

thou  that  destroyest  the  temple.  The  accusation  of  the 
two  witnesses  before  Caiaphas  (xiv.  58 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  61).  It  had 
become  matter  of  common  talk. 

31.  the  chief  priests.      Even   these   dignitaries  joined  in  the 
•     mockery,  not  with  the  crowd  indeed,  but  passing  their  jeers  from 

mouth  to  mouth  among  themselves.  The  taunt  in  which  they 
indulge,  '  H<;  saved  others  ;  himself  he  cannot  save'  (or,  'can  he 
not  save  himself? '),  is  not  the  same  as  Ps.  xxii,  8. 

32.  they  that  were  crucified  with  him:  so  also  Matthew. 
Luke  refers  only  to  one  of  the  malefactors  as  railing  on  Jesus, 
and  adds  Ihv.  rebuke  administered  to  him  by  his  fellow  criminal, 
his  petition  to  Jesus,  and  the  answer  it  received  (xxiii.  39-43)- 
From  Luke  we  learn  also  that  the  soldiers  joined  with  others  in 
the  common  heartless  derision  (xxiii.  36). 


ST,  MARK  1 5.  33,  34-     Mk  425 

And  when  the  sixth  hour  was  come,  there  was  darkness  33 
over  the  whole  ^  land  until  the  ninth  hour.     And  at  the  34 
ninth  hour  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  Eloi,  Eloi,  lama 
sabachthani?  which  is,  being  interpreted,  My  God,  my 

'^  Or,  earth 


XV.  33-41.  The  Last  Hours  and  the  Events  attendant  on  the 
Death  {ci.  Matt,  xxvii.  45-56;   Luke  xxiii.  44-9;  John  xix.  28-30). 

33.  there  was  darkness.  Luke  explains  it  as  due  to  '  the 
sun's  light  failing'  (xxiii.  45^ 

over  tlie  whole  land  nntil  the  ninth  hour:  that  is,  from 
12  noon  until  3  p.m.  This  darkness,  if  an  actual  historical  fact 
(for  another  view  see  below),  cannot  be  explained  as  the  result 
of  an  ordinary  eclipse.  An  eclipse  at  the  Paschal  full  moon 
is  an  impossibility.  It  must  be  understood,  according  to  the 
Gospel  narratives,  t(i  have  been  a  gloom  out  of  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature,  in  which  all  that  happened  during  the  last  three 
hours  of  the  Saviour's  Passion  was  shrouded  from  view.  What 
the  Evangelist  has  in  mind  is  probably  rightly  expressed  in  the  main 
by  the  earliest  extant  Greek  commentator  on  Mark,  Victor  of  Antioch 
ic.  fifth  to  sixth  cent."")- — largely  a  compiler  from  other  sources — 
who  writes  :  '  then  took  place  the  very  thing  they  used  to  ask  for 
from  Jesus,  a  sign  from  heaven.'  Possibly  Amos  viii.  9  may  be  in 
view  :  'And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  God, 
that  I  will  cause  the  sun  to  go  down  at  noon,  and  1  will  darken 
the  earth  in  the  clear  day,'  a  passage  cited  by  Irenaeus  (end  of 
second  cent.)  in  this  connexion.  The  phrase  '  over  all  the  land  ' 
niay  also  mean  'over  all  the  earth  '  It  is  most  natural  to  take  the 
more  limited  application  ;  so  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Peter,  5, 
takes  it. 

34.  at  the  ninth  hour :  that  is,  the  hour  for  the  evening  sacri- 
fice (cf.  Acts  iii.  i\  when  the  Paschal  victims  were  being  brought 
for  sacrifice  (cf.  Swete  on  xiv.  17). 

Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice :  not  in  the  feeble  voice  of 
one  exhausted.  That  this  \vas  the  sense  in  which  the  Evangelist 
intended  the  words  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  he  represents  the 
centurion  as  regarding  the  similar  loud  cry  of  verse  37,  with 
which  Jesus  expired,  as  a  mark  of  heroic  greatness. 

Eloi,  Eloi,  lama  sabachthani?  The  cry  is  given  in  the 
vernacular,  with  a  translation  for  the  benefit  of  Gentile  readers. 
Sabachthani  is  Aramaic,  not  Hebrew,  as  is  also  the  form  Eloi,  the 
Hebrew  being  £■//!£■/  ^  /is  found  in  some  old  MSS  ,  cf  Matt.  here). 
But  the  misunderstanding  of  the  cry  by  certain  Jewish  bystanders, 
as  tliough  he  called  '^//jah,'  points  to  Jesus  having  uttered  the 


426  ST.  MARK  15.  35.     Mk 

35  God,  »  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?     And  some  of  them 

'^  Or,  why  didst  thou  forsake  me  ? 

words  (familiar  to  him  through  the  Synagogue  reading  of  them) 
in  the  original  Hebrew.  Hence  it  looks  as  if  the  wording  of  the 
cry  had  been  Aramaized  in  tradition.  If  so,  at  this  crisis  in  his 
sufferings  Jesus  gives  utterance,  as  an  instinctive  relief  for  his 
pent-up  feelings  of  agony,  to  the  opening  words  of  Ps.  xxii  in  the 
original  Hebrew.  The  psalm  may  have  been  running  in  his  thoughts 
as  the  closest  O.T.  parallel  to  his  own  case,  in  its  utter  solitude 
and  human  helplessness,  and  one  which  he  had  probably  applied 
to  himself  as  Messiah  ever  since  the  Passion  confronted  him  in 
the  path  of  his  mission,  cf.  x.  32.  The  words  are  not  to  be 
explained  simply  as  the  recoil  of  nature  from  the  pangs  of  dissolu- 
tion. It  is  the  cry  of  one  deprived  for  the  time  of  sensible  tokens 
of  God's  fellowship — the  cry  of  loyalty  struggling  with  this  novel 
and  strange  experience,  in  utter  darkness  clinging  to  faith  and 
trusting  itself  to  God,  but  bereft  for  a  season  of  the  gladness  of 
realized  fellowship.  Here  is  an  experience  too  deep  for  us  fully 
to  fathom,  as  that  of  a  soul  standing  in  a  relation  widely  different 
from  ours  to  man  and  his  sin,  and  to  God  and  His  grace.  This  is 
the  only  cry  from  the  cross  that  is  recorded  by  Mark  and  Matthew. 
That  there  were  others  we  gather  from  Luke  and  John. 

The  spirit  and  purport  of  the  words,  'My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?'  have  been  much  disputed.  They  are  not 
words  which  would  have  been  put  into  Jesus'  mouth  by  Christian 
tradition,  simply  as  a  Messianic  O.T.  parallel  taken  over  by 
later  reflexion,  and  are  therefore  to  be  viewed  as  true  to  Jesus' 
own  experience.  Rut  do  they  denote  the  desolation  of  defeat 
and  despair?  Dr.  Estlin  Carpenter  (as  quoted  by  Montefiore, 
ad.  loc.)  replies  that,  though  such  an  interpretation  at  first  sight 
appears  most  natural,  it  'seems  inconsistent  with  the  whole 
character  of  Jesus,  and  especially  with  the  inner  history  of  the 
fatal  night.  The  possibility  of  death  had  been  in  sight  for  weeks. 
He  had  come  to  Jerusalem  ready  to  face  the  worst.  As  it 
approached,  it  proved,  indeed,  a  trial  more  grievous  than  even  he 
had  foreseen  [witness  Gethsemane].  But  in  Gethsemane  he  had 
solemnly  offered  himself  to  God.  Could  he  llinch  when  the  offer 
was  accepted?  What  pain  and  shame  could  undo  his  trust,  or 
sever  tlie  fellowship  of  his  spirit  with  the  Father?  It  is  more 
congruous,  therefore,  with  his  previous  attitude  to  interpret  the 
cry  as  a  iinal  declaration  of  faith,'  in  terms  of  the  Psalm  on  which 
he  had  been  dwelling  and  staying  his  soul,  as  we  may  infer, 
throughout  his  sufferings.  We  must,  that  is,  view  the  words, 
with  wliich  that  psalm  of  passionate  pleading  opens,  in  the  light  of 
its  thought  as  a  whole  (so  Menzies),  which  passes  on  to  a  note  of 


ST.  MARK  15.  36.     Mk  427 

that   stood  by,  when    they  heard   it,   said,  Behold,  he 
calleth  EUjah.     And  one  ran,  and   filling  a  sponge  full  36 
of  vinegar,  put  it  on  a  reed,  and  gave  him  to  drink,  saying, 
Let  be;  let  us  see  whether  Elijah  cometh  to  take  him 

triumph  and  thanksgiving  for  God's  deliverance  :  '  I  will  declare 
thy  name  unto  my  brethren  :  in  the  midst  of  the  congregation 
will  I  praise  thee  (quoted  in  Heb.  ii.  12  as  a  sequel  to  Jesus' 
sufferings  as  the  Son  of  man).  For  God  hath  not  despised  nor 
abhorred  the  affliction  of  the  afflicted  ;  neither  hath  he  hid  his  face 
from  him  :  but  when  he  cried  unto  him,  he  heard.'  It  may  even 
be  that  Jesus  was  only  beginning  to  recite  to  himself  a  favourite 
psalm,  as  a  counteractive  giving  relief  to  the  tension  in  the  final 
paroxysm  of  his  Passion,  and  intended  to  go  on  to  the  trustful 
confession  of  faith  to  which  it  rises  :  but  his  strength  failed,  and 
he  said  no  more  that  was  audible,  until  aroused  perhaps  for 
a  moment  by  an  attempt  to  press  reviving  drops  of  sour  wine 
through  his  lips,  as  next  described  (see  note  on  verse  36).  Then 
he  rallied,  with  a  supreme  effort,  his  powers  of  consciousness 
enough  to  add  3'et  another  cry,  which  Luke  records  to  have 
expressed  the  trust  in  his  Father  which  was  as  yet  unuttered,  in 
the  familiar  and  loved  terms  of  Ps.  xxxi.  5  (closely  akin  to 
Ps.  xxii).  This,  too,  was  in  a  'loud  voice,'  with  the  energy  of  a 
supreme  effort  which  seems  to  have  deeply  impressed  the  cen- 
turion superintending  the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence  (verse  39). 
As  Simon  of  Cyrene  may  have  been  the  source  of  the  common 
tradition  recorded  in  Mark  and  Matthew  (with  some  marks  of 
independent  tradition  in  the  latter,  e.  g.  Matt,  xxvii.  49),  so  what 
Luke  adds  may  have  come  through  a  different  channel  of  tradition, 

35.  Beliold,  lie  calleth  Elijah.  There  is  no  sign  in  the  narra- 
tive that  this  was  other  than  an  innocent  misunderstanding,  turning 
on  the  similarity  in  Hebrew  (or  Aramaic)  between  the  word  for 
God  and  the  name  of  the  prophet.  The  special  point  of  the 
suggestion  may  have  lain  in  the  connexion  which  Elijah  had  with 
the  Messiah  in  popular  belief:  but  Elijah  is  also  in  Jewish  legend 
the  stock  helper  of  people  in  moments  of  distress  and  danger. 

36.  filling-  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar.  The  drink  offered  at 
this  point  was  'vinegar,'  that  is  to  say,  the  sour  wine  drunk  by 
the  common  soldier  and  the  labourer  in  the  field  (Ruth  ii.  14). 
John  tells  us  that  a  vessel  of  this  was  'set  there,'  whether  for  the 
soldiers'  use  or  expressly  for  the  relief  of  the  sufferers.  On  this 
occasion  a  sponge  was  dipped  in  the  wine,  and  put  upon  a  reed 
(a  stalk  of  hj'ssop,  John  xix.  zg^,  and  brouglit  to  his  mouth. 

Let  he;  let  us   see   whether  Elijah  cometh  to  take  him 
down.     According  to  Matthew  it  is  the  others  standing  by,  '  the 


428  ST.  MARK  15.  37,  38-     Mk 

37  down.     And  Jesus  uttered  a  loud  voice,  and  gave  up 

38  the  ghost.     And   the  veil  of  the  ^  temple  was  rent  in 

*  Or,  sanctuary 

rest,'  who  said  this.  According  to  Mark  it  is  the  man  who  ran 
with  the  sponge;  and  on  his  hps  the  'let  be'  might  mean,  'let 
me  have  my  way  with  this.'  He  seems  to  have  noticed  signs  of 
collapse  in  the  sufferer  (cf.  end  of  note  on  verse  34). 

37.  uttered  a  loud  voice.  Apparently,  to  judge  from  Matthew 
and  Luke  in  particular,  different  from  that  in  verse  34.  Luke 
supplies  the  words  uttered,  'Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend 
my  spirit '  (xxiii.  46). 

gave  up  the  ghost:  lit.  'breathed  forth'  his  life,  'expired' 
fso  also  Luke).  '  Yielded  up  the  spirit '  (Matt),  '  bowed  his  head, 
and  gave  up  the  spirit'  (John),  are  later  expressions  possibly 
hinting  at  a  death  which  was  a  voluntary  laying  down  of  life. 
Whatever  the  immediate  physical  cause  of  Jesub'  death  (see  John 
xix.  34  and  note  there),  it  was  probably  accelerated  by  the  intense 
mental  anguish — possibly  at  the  very  last  by  the  effort  of  will  put 
into  the  loud  cry  of  self-committal  to  God. 

38.  the  veil  of  the  temple.  The  temple  had  two  veils  or 
curtains,  one  before  the  Holy  Place  and  another  before  the  Holy 
of  Holies.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  speaking  of 
the  tabernacle,  mentions  '  the  second  veil '  (ix.  3).  The  curtain 
intended  here  is  no  doubt  the  one  before  the  Holy  of  Holies 
(Exod.  xxvi.  31;  Lev.  xxi.  23).  The  rending  of  the  veil  is  reported 
by  all  three  Synoptists.  For  a  figurative  application  of  the  'veil,' 
see  Heb.  vi.  19  ;  for  a  more  mystical  sense  of  the  rent  veil  (as 
Jesus'  flesh\  see  Heb.  x.  20.  In  Mark,  the  rent  veil  certainly 
symbolizes  the  effect  of  Jesus'  death.  But  in  what  sense?  Is  it 
as  a  symbol  that  with  Messiaii's  death,  as  '  a  ransom  in  place  of 
many'  (x.  45\  there  was  opened  a  new  era  in  the  Covenant  with 
God,  the  Messianic  age  of  unimpeded  personal  access  of  each  and 
all  to  God  in  worship,  such  access  as  Jiitherto  had  been  reserved 
for  the  Hi.^h-priest  only,  and  that  but  once  a  year?  Another 
meaning,  more  directly  related  to  the  idea  of  a  supersession  of 
the  material  Temple  system  altogether,  is  favoured  by  the  Jewish 
Christian  Gospel  accotdms[  to  the  Hebrews  known  to  Jerome,  to  the 
effect  that  'the  lintel  of  the  Temple,  of  marvellous  size,  fell  down 
in  fragments.'  This  distinctly  suggests  the  coming  destruction  of 
the  Temple  and  its  worshij),  as  foretold  by  Jesus  in  Mark  xiii.  2, 
and  would  suit  the  spirit  of  that  saying  upon  which  was  based 
the  charge  against  him,  that  he  would  destroy  the  temple  made 
with  hands  and  in  three  days  build  another  made  without  hands 
(cf.  verse  29).     Strangely  enough  there  is  also  a  passage  in  the 


ST.  MARK  15.  39.     Mk  429 

twain   from    the    top   to   the    bottom.     And   when   the  39 
centurion,  which  stood  by  over  against  him,  saw  that  he 
*  so  gave  up  the  ghost,  he  said.  Truly  this  man  was  ^'  the 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  read  so  cried  out,  and  gave  tip  the 
ghost. 

^  Or,  a  son  of  God 

Babylonian  Talmud  (Joina,  ag**),  cited  by  Allen,  which  contains 
the  idea  that  the  fate  of  the  Temple  was  foreshadowed  about 
this  time  :  '  Forty  years  before  the  fall  of  the  temple,  the  doors  of 
the  temple  opened  of  themselves,  until  Rabbi  Jochanan  ben  Zaccai 
rebuked  them,  saying,  O  Temple,  Temple,  why  troublest  thou 
thyself?  I  know  that  thy  end  is  near.'  In  the  light  of  all  the 
above,  it  seems  that  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  Temple,  a 
breach  within  its  Holy  of  Holies,  meant  in  Mark  and  Matthew  a 
warning  from  God  that  the  existing  external  temple  system  of 
Judaism  was  doomed,  rather  than  the  more  subtly  allegoric 
symbolism  of  the  Epistle  to  Hebrews. 

As  to  the  historicity  of  the  event,  it  may  be  noted  that  Luke 
seems  to  take  it  and  the  reference  to  the  preternatural  darkness 
(verses  44  f.)  simply  from  Mark  (his  special  source  may  well  have 
passed  straight  from  verse  43  to  46),  while  it  is  ignored  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  its  suggestive  symbolism 
would  naturally  suit  that  Gospel's  thought.  Matthew's  additional 
portents,  too— a  quaking  of  the  earth,  a  rending  of  tombs,  and  a 
rising  of  many  O.T.  saints  (xxvii.  51,  52' — also  tend  to  suggest 
that  here  Christian  tradition,  at  this  crisis  in  the  work  of  Salva- 
tion, has  become  expanded  by  the  symbolic  action  of  the  pious 
imagination,  as  it  dwelt  on  the  momentous  significance  of  the 
event. 

39.  the  centurion.  A  Latinism,  the  usual  Greek  for  it  being 
a  different  word.  He  was  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  quaternion 
of  soldiers.  The  name  given  to  him  in  the  apocryphal  Acts  of 
Pilate  is  of  no  historical  value,  being  given  also  to  the  soldier  who 
pierced  Jesus'  side  and  the  prefect  at  the  execution  of  Paul  in  his 
Acts. 

saw  that  he  so  g-ave  up  the  ghost.  The  A.V.  reads  that 
'he  so  cried  out,  and  gave  up  the  ghost.'  This  resls  on  inadequate 
documentary  evidence,  but  is  probably  true  to  Mark's  meaning. 
Fur  his  reference  to  the  manner  of  Jesus'  expiring  as  having  im- 
pressed the  centurion  apparently  points  back  to  the  wonderful 
energy  of  Jesus'  final  crv,  in  contrast  to  the  languor  or  coma  usual 
in  such  cases.  Luke,  who  describes  Jesus'  last  cry  as  a  confident 
address  to  God  as  his  '  Father,'  traces  tlie  impression  produced 
generally  '  to  that  which  had  taken  place.'     But  in  any  case  the 


43°  ST.  MARK  15.  40.     Mk 

40  Son  of  God.  And  there  were  also  women  beholding 
from  afar  :  among  whom  were  both  Mary  Magdalene, 
and  Mary  the  mother  of  James  the  ^  less  and  of  Joses, 

»  Gr.  little 


way  in  which  Jesus  expired  was  something  entirely  foreign  to  all 
the  experience  this  soldier  had  had  of  similar  deaths;  and  it  made 
so  great  an  impression  upon  him  that  he  confessed  this  sufferer  to 
be  no  ordinary  Jew,  but  '  a  righteous  man  '  (Luke),  '  (the)  Son  of 
God  '  or  rather  '  a  son  of  God  '  (Mark  and  Matthew).  This  does 
not  mean  acknowledgement  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  but  expresses 
the  centurion's  sense  of  something  supernatural  in  the  sufferer 
whose  death  he  had  witnessed.  The  title  'Son  of  God'  would 
mean  no  more  to  a  pagan,  even  if  taken  up  by  the  soldier  from 
the  mouths  of  the  Jewish  passers-by  who  had  used  it  as  a  synonym 
for  Messiah  (Matt,  xxvii.  4o\  (Matthew  saj's  that  'they  that 
were  vvith  him  watching  Jesus'  joined  in  this  confession,  and 
traces  it  to  the  fear  excited  by  the  '  earthquake  and  the  things 
that  were  done,'  xxvii.  54.) 

40.  also  women.  These  were  disciples  from  Galilee.  Apart, 
at  some  distance  from  the  cross,  they  gazed  upon  the  Sufferer  and 
the  scene  with  deeper  feelings  than  those  of  the  centurion.  Three 
are  mentioned  by  name  in  Mark  and  Matthew. 

Mary  Mag-dalene :  so  called  from  the  place  to  which  she 
belonged,  probably  the  Magdala,  now  el-Mejdel,  on  the  western 
side  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  at  the  southern  end  of  the  district  of 
Gennesaret.  She  had  been  delivered  from  'seven  demons,' and 
had  become  a  follower  of  the  Healer,  ministering  to  him  of  her 
substance  (Luke  viii.  2,  3  ;  cf.  Mark  xvi.  9).  She  is  introduced 
here  for  the  first  time  by  Mark. 

Mary  the  niotlier  of  James  the  less  (or,  the  little)  and  of 
Joses.  Joses  is  probably  the  same  as  the  Joseph  of  Matthew. 
John  I  xix.  25)  speaks  of  her  as  '  the  wife  of  Clopas,'  and  sister  of 
Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus.  Some  take  Clopas  to  be  the  same  as 
Alphacus,  and  so  make  this  Mary  the  mother  of  the  Apostle 
James,  the  second  James  in  the  lists  of  the  Twelve.  But  the 
identification  of  Clopas  with  Alphacus  is  doubtful.  In  ancient 
Church  history  mention  is  made  of  a  Clopas  who  was  the 
brother  of  Joseph  and  so  the  uncle  of  Jesus  himself,  and  father  of 
the  Symcon  who  was  president  of  the  mother  church  of  Jerusalem 
after  the  death  of  James  the  Just  (Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  11,  22, 
32  ;  iv.  22).  The  term  applied  to  this  James,  '  the  less,'  or  rather 
'the  little,'  is  taken  by  many  to  mean  'the  younger'  or  'less' 
(as  compared  with  James  the  brother  of  Jesus),  though  often  it 
expresses  merely  small  size.  It  is  used,  c.  g.,  to  express  the  fact 
that  Zacchacus  was  '  little  of  stature '  (Luke  xix.  3). 


ST.  MARK  15.  41-43-     Mk  431 

and  Salome;  who,  when  he  was  in  Galilee,  followed  him,  4' 
and    ministered    unto    him ;    and    many    other    women 
which  came  up  with  him  unto  Jerusalem. 

And  when  even  was  now  come,  because  it  was  the  42 
Preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before  the  sabbath,  there  43 
came  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  a  councillor  of  honourable 

and  Salome.  Here  found  only  in  Mark,  and  bj^  him  left 
unexplained,  probably  as  being  a  name  well  known  among  Chris- 
tians and  not  shared  by  any  other  woman  of  Jesus'  circle. 
Matthew  describes  the  person  here  in  view  as  'the  mother  of  the 
sons  of  Zebedee '  (xxvii.  56 ;  cf.  xx.  20).  In  the  Fourth  Gospel 
the  women  standing  hard  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  are  described  as 
'  his  mother,  and  his  mother's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  Clopas, 
and  Mary  Magdalene'  (John  xix.  25). 

41.  many  other  •women.  Looking  on  the  cross  were  not 
only  these  faithful  Galilean  women,  who  had  been  constant  in 
their  loving  attendance  upon  Jesus  and  are  mentioned  by  name, 
but  also  a  band  of  others  of  less  note,  who  had  followed  him  on 
his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  Of  the  former  class  Luke  in  his 
earlier  narrative  mentions  other  two  byname — 'Joanna  the  wife 
of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  and  Susanna '  (viii.  2  ;  cf.  xxiv.  10). 
With  this  group  of  women  Luke  now  refers  also  to  'all  his 
acquaintance'  (xxiii.  49). 

XV.  42-47.  The  Burial  of  Jesus  (cf.  Matt,  xxvii.  57-61  ;  Luke 
xxiii.  50-55  ;  John  xix.  38-42  , 

42.  even  was  now  come  :  that  is,  laic  afternoon  or  early 
evening,  the  time  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  day,  which  may  be 
taken  rather  differently  according  to  the  context,  i.  e.  as  just  after 
sunset  (as  i.  32)  or  shortly  before  it,  as  here.  See  Deut.  xxi.  22  ff. 
for  the  burial  of  dead  criminals  before  nightfall  (cf.  Josephus, 
Wars,  iv.  5.  2^. 

because  it  was  the  Preparation  :  that  is,  the  preparation 
for  the  sabbath,  particularlj'  from  3  p.m.  to  sunset  (Jos.  Ant.  xvi. 
6.  2).  It  was,  as  Mark  explains  for  his  non-Jewish  readers  (cf. 
Luke  xxiii.  54^  the  eve  of  the  sabbath,  whicli  began  at  sunset,  not 
long  after  6  p.m.  So  the  word  '  Preparation  '  becomes  a  technical 
term,  used  of  Fridaj'.  The  mention  of  the  Preparation  is  intro- 
duced in  explanation  of  the  action  of  Joseph  ( cf.  Luke  xxiii.  54). 
The  Fourth  Gospel  states  that  the  Jews  had  already  taken  action 
with  a  view  to  having  the  body  removed  before  the  sabbath  began 
(John  xix.  31). 

43.  there  came  Joseph  of  Arimathiea.  Ancient  Christian 
writers  identified  this  Arimath^a  with  the  Ramathaim-Zophim  in 


432  ST,  MARK   15.  44,45-     Mk 

estate,  who  also  himself  was  looking    for   the  kingdom 
of  God  ;  and  he  boldly  went  in  unto  Pilate,  and  asked 

44  for  the  body  of  Jesus.  And  Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were 
already  dead  :  and  calling  unto  him  the  centurion,  he 
asked    him    whether    he    -"^had   been   any    while   dead. 

45  And  when  he  learned  it  of  the  centurion,  he  granted  the 

*  Many  ancient  authorities  read  were  already  dead.     Syr.  sin  on. 
already 


the  hill-country  of  Ephraim  (to  which  Elkanah  belonged,  i  Sam. 
i.  i),  which  again  is  identified  by  some  with  er-Ram,  a  place 
some  miles  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem.  But  Eusebius,  the  Church 
historian,  placed  it  near  Lydda  (cf.  i  Mace.  xi.  34,  '  Lydda  and 
Rathamein  '). 

a  councillor  of  lionoiirable  estate  :  a  member  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin,  that  is  to  say,  and  one  of  high  standing  in  the  body.  Matthew 
speaks  of  him  as  'a  rich  man'  (xxvii.  57)  and  a  disciple  of  Jesus, 
though  a  secret  one  (John  xix.  38).  Luke  also  says  that  he  was 
*  a  good  man  and  a  righteous,'  who  had  not  consented  to  the 
'  counsel  and  deed  '  of  the  Jewish  court  in  condemning  Jesus 
^Luke  xxiii.  5o\  Neither  Mark  nor  Luke  implies  that  Joseph 
was  an  actual  disciple  of  Jesus,  rather  than  a  man  in  sympathy 
with  the  spirit  of  his  teaching. 

looking'  for  the  king-dom  of  God.  He  belonged  to  the  class 
of  devout,  expectant  Jews,  represented  also  by  Simeon  (Luke  ii. 
25),  of  whom  there  were  not  a  few  in  Jerusalem  itself  (Luke 
ii.  38).  . 

boldly  went  in  unto  Pilate.  The  emergency  made  him  rise 
superior  to  any  risk  in  the  act. 

asked  for  the  body  of  Jesus.  It  was  the  Roman  custom  to 
leave  the  bodies  of  the  crucified  hanging  for  a  length  of  time, 
exposed  to  sun  and  rain  and  the  attacks  of  beasts  and  birds  of 
prey.  In  the  more  merciful  Jewish  law  it  was  expressly  ordered 
that  the  body  of  one  hung  upon  a  tree  should  not  be  left  exposed 
all  night,  but  taken  down  and  buried  on  the  day  of  suspension 
(Deut.  xxi.  23). 

44.  Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were  already  dead.  Usually  the 
crucified  died  a  lingering  death,  their  sufferings  lasting  from  a  day 
and  a  half  to  three  days.  From  John  we  learn  that  the  legs  of 
the  robbers  crucified  with  Jesus  were  broken  at  the  request  of  the 
Jews,  in  order  to  hasten  death  bffore  the  sabbath  began,  but  that 
Jesus  was  found  to  be  dead  already    xix.  31-33). 

45.  granted   the    corpse    to   Joseph.      The   word    rendered 


ST.  MARK  15.  46.     Mk  433 

corpse  to  Joseph.     And  he  bought  a  Hnen  cloth,  and  46 
taking  him   down,  wound  him  in  the  linen  cloth,  and 
laid  him  in  a  tomb  which  had  been  hewn  out  of  a  rock ; 
and  he  rolled  a  stone  against  the   door  of  the  tomb. 


'granted'  conveys  the  idea  of  a  boon  conferred  (used  only  once 
again  in  the  N.T.,  in  2  Pet.  i.  3).  The  Greek  word  for  '  corpse' 
(cf.  vi.  29)  seems  to  preserve  the  hard  technical  term  used  in 
the  official  permit,  softened  into  '  body  '  in  the  other  Gospels. 

46.  bought  a  linen  cloth.  Such  an  act  favours  the  view  that 
the  Passover  Day  had  not  yet  begun.  The  Fourth  Gospel  adds 
that  Nicodemus,  Joseph's  fellow  councillor,  also  came,  bringing 
with  him  'a  mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes,  about  a  hundred  pound 
weight'  (xix.  39),  and  assisted  Joseph  in  removinrj  the  body  from 
the  cross  and  placing  it  with  the  spices  in  the  folds  of  the  linen 
cloth — binding  it  with  strips  of  cloth  ('swathing'  is  Mark's  word) 
— according  to  the  Jewish  custom  for  burial  (John  xix.  40).  But 
this  account  of  an  embalming  of  Jesus'  body  is  not  only  un- 
supported by  the  two  forms  of  earlier  tradition  in  Mark  (with 
Matthew)  and  Luke,  but  seems  excluded  by  the  preparations  for 
a  seemingly  similar  act  by  the  women,  who  had  watched  the 
hasty  and  perhaps  only  provisional  proceedings  of  Joseph  and  his 
helpers.  Even  John  xix.  42,  'there,  then,  owing  to  the  Prepara- 
tion of  the  Jews,  because  the  tomb  was  hard  by,  they  placed 
Jesus,'  seems  to  suggest  that  Joseph  meant  his  pious  ministry  to 
the  dead  to  be  only  provisional,  as  Jesus'  friends  might  wish  later 
to  dispose  of  the  body  cthcrv^-ise. 

laid  him  in  a  tomb  which  had  been  hewn  out  of  a  rock. 
Sepulchral  chambers  of  this  kind  (cf.  Isa.  xxii.  16)  are  found  in 
numbers  on  the  south,  west,  and  north-west  of  Jerusalem.  This 
tomb  was  a  'fresh  '  one,  having  never  been  used  (Matt,  xxvii.  60  ; 
Luke  xxiii.  53  ;  John  xix.  41),  and  was  situated  in  a  garden  near 
where  Jesus  had  been  crucified  (John  xix.  41). 

ha  rolled  a  stone.  It  was  usual  to  close  the  tomb  in  this 
way  ;  cf.  John  xi.  38.  A  large,  slab-like  stone,  more  or  less 
circular,  moving  in  a  sort  of  groove,  is  possibly  meant  (cf.  xvi.  3  f.). 
(Matthew  says  that  the  stone  was  sealed  at  the  request  of  the  Jews 
and  had  a  guard  set  over  it,  xxvii.  64-66.)  At  this  point  Luke 
has  the  words  'And  it  was  the  day  of  the  Preparation  (Friday), 
and  the  Sabbath  drt  w  on,'  niarg.  'was  dawning' — in  a  meta- 
phorical sense,  for  the  new  day  began  for  the  Jews  at  sunset. 
This  is  followed  by  a  verse  corresponding  to  verse  47  in  Mark, 
and  the  statement  that  '  they  returned  (^home),  and  prepared  spices 
and  unguents'  for  later  use. 

Ff 


434  ST.  MARK  15.  47—16.  2.     Mk 

47  And  Mary  Magdalene   and  Mary  the  mother  of  Joses 

beheld  where  he  was  laid. 
16      And  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  ""Mary  Magdalene, 

and   Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome,^  bought 
2  spices,  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.     And  very 

early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  they  come  to  the 

47.  And  Mary  Magdalene  and  Mary  tlie  mother  of  Joses: 
two  of  the  three  specified  in  verse  40.  Luke  speaks  generally  of 
'  the  women,  which  had  come  with  him  out  of  Galilee,'  as  follow- 
ing Joseph's  steps  and  seeing  the  tomb  and  the  burial  (xxiii.  55). 
Mark  says  simply  that  they  'were  observing  where  he  was  laid.' 
Knowing  where  they  could  find  the  loved  body  when  the  sabbath 
was  past,  they  went  their  way,  purposing  then  to  return  with  the 
spices  and  unguents  needed  for  the  performance  of  the  last  sad 
offices  (Mark  xvi.  i,  Luke  xxiii,  56). 

xvi.  1-8.  The  Women  and  the  Empty  Tomb  (cf.  Matt,  xxviii. 
1-8 ;  Luke  xxiv.  i-io  ;  also  John  xx.  1-18). 

1.  And  wlien  the  sabbath  was  past.  That  is,  after  sunset  on 
the  Saturday.  According  to  Jewish  reckoning  it  was  now  the 
third  day  after  the  crucifixion,  Friday  after  3  p.m.,  Saturday,  and 
the  opening  or  'dawn'  of  Sunday  (after  Saturday  evening:  cf. 
Lk.  xxiii.  54  for  this  use  of  '  dawn  '),  including  parts  of  three  days. 

fMary  .  .  .  Salome. ^  The  oldest  form  of  the  Latin  version 
(D  k  n)  omits  this  specification  of  those  who  brought  spices,  which 
probably  was  inserted  when  Mark's  text  was  divided  into  lections 
for  reading  in  church  (Salome  being  added  from  xv.  4o\  But  the 
verse  reall3'  goes  with  xv.  47,  not  xvi.  2. 

(Jhey)  bouglit  spices.  Luke  writes  as  if  the  women  had 
prepared  the  spices  before  the  sabbath  (xxiii.  56).  The  women 
are  those  previously  mentioned  as  having  'beheld'  where  Jesus 
'  was  laid  '  (47).  They  procure  what  was  necessary  to  complete 
what  had  been  done,  by  embalming  the  revered  body.  Compare 
the  account  of  the  burying  of  King  Asa  1:2  Cliron.  xvi.  14).  Matt, 
xxviii.  I,  like  xxvii.  61,  makes  no  reference  to  any  purpose  other 
than  that  of  beholding  the  grave — a  trace  of  independent  tradition. 

2.  very  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  four  Evan- 
gelists agree  in  the  care  with  which  they  note  the  time.  Mark 
has  '  very  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  .  .  .  when  the  sun 
was  risen'  ;  Matthew,  'late  on  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn 
toward  the  first  day  of  the  week  '  ;  Luke,  '  on  the  first  day  of  the 
wxek,  at  early  dawn  '  ;  John,  '  on  tlie  first  day  of  the  week  .  .  . 
while  it  was  yet  dark.'  Probably  all  these  phrases  mean  that 
the  first  streaks  of  Sunday's  dawn  were  appearing.  The  one 
difficulty  here  is  Matthew's  '  late  on  the  Sabbath,  at  the  hour  when 


ST.  MARK  16.  3.     Mk  435 

tomb  when  the  sun  was  risen.     And  they  were  saying  3 
among  themselves,  Who  shall   roll  us  away  the  stone 

the  first  day  of  theweek  (^Sunday)  was  dawning.'  In  view  of  their 
object,  'to  gaze  on  the  tomb,'  it  seems  as  if  this  were  in  terms  of 
Roman  reckoning,  even  if  'dawning'  here  means  '  opening,'  as  in 
Luke  xxiii.  54,  '  it  was  the  day  of  the  Preparation,  and  Sabbath 
was  dawning.' 

On  this  use  of  the  Greek  verb  epiphoskeh',  see  C.  H.  Turner 
in  The  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies,  xiv.  188  fT.,  and  F.  C.  Burkitt,  ib., 
pp.  sagflf.  Illustration  of  the  Jewish  use  of  the  verb  '  to  dawn  '  is 
afforded  by  the  non-canonical  'Gospel  of  Peter,'  2,  where  Herod 
says  in  the  morning  of  Friday  that  '  the  Sabbath  is  dawning,'  i.e. 
drawing  on,  referring  to  the  time  of  sunset  that  evening,  when 
'the  first  day  of  the  Unleavened  Bread  '  was  to  begin.  Yet  more 
striking  is  the  phrasing  in  section  9,  where  we  read  'and  in  the 
night  in  which  the  Lord's  Da}'  was  dawning,'  i.  e.  the  hours  of 
darkness  preceding  the  Resurrection  morning.  But,  as  Burkitt 
shews  (p.  545),  Matthew — in  writing  '  late  on  the  Sabbath  '—is  not 
following  Jewish  reckoning  of  the  ending  and  beginning  of  the 
day,  but  the  Western,  which  placed  it  atsunrise  rather  than  sunset. 
when  the  suii  was  risen:  but  while  it  was  still  'very  early.' 
The  word  '  early  '  is  sometimes  used  of  the  fourth  watch,  that  is, 
from  3  to  6  a.m. ;  the  phrase  '  very  earlj^'  therefore,  is  relative  to 
that  space  of  time.  Mark's  first  note  of  lime  consequently  is  to  be 
taken  as  of  a  general  kind,  and  means  '  as  early  as  they  possibly 
could'  (Burkitt).  It  is,  then,  probable  that  Mark  here  means  not 
full  sunrise,  but  the  illumination  heralding  its  appearance,  i.e.  the 
hour  between  '  cock  crow  '  and  '  early  morn  '  proper '^see  xiii.  35  . 
Thus  '  very  early'  is  the  same  as  Luke's  'at  early  dawn  '  (as  the 
Old  Syriac  renders  the  Greek  there).  Andrews  notices  that  at 
the  season  of  year  in  question  '  the  sun  rose  about  half-past  five, 
and  it  began  to  be  light  enough  to  discenn  objects  at  least  half  an 
hour  earlier'  {The  Life  of  our  Lord,  p.  598).  This  reading  of 
Mark  is  confirmed  by  the  distinction  between  the  time  of  buj'ing 
the  aromatics  in  verse  i,  viz.  just  after  Sabbath  ended  with  sunset 
on  Saturday,  and  the  time  of  going  with  them  to  the  tomb  in 
verse  2,  viz.  at  sunrise.  Naturally  women  would  hardly  attempt 
to  go  to  a  tomb  outside  the  city,  and  begin  such  a  task  as  lay 
before  them,  when  the  shades  of  night  were  falling  or  still  black. 
This  consideration  excludes  the  theory  suggested  by  Allen,  that 
the  translator  of  an  Aramaic  Mark  mistook  the  sense  of  a  ^vo^d 
which  might  mean  '  dawn  '  either  literally  or  metaphorically. 

3.  Who  shall  roll  us  away  the  stone?  They  knew  the  way  in 
which  it  was  customary  to  secure  rock-hewn  sepulchres,  and 
probably  had  seen  the  stone  put  in  its  place  by  Joseph. 


436  ST.  MARK  16.  4-6.     Mk 

4  from  the  door  of  the  tomb  ?  and  looking  up,  they  see 
that  the  stone  is  rolled  back  :  for  it  was  exceeding  great. 

5  And  entering  into  the  tomb,  they  saw  a  young  man 
sitting  on   the  right  side,  arrayed  in  a  white  robe ;  and 

6  they  were  amazed.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Be  not 
amazed  :  ye  seek  Jesus,  the  Nazarene,  which  hath  been 
crucified  :  he  is  risen  ;  he  is  not  here  :  behold,  the  place 

4.  looking  up  :  i.e.  looking  ahead.  A  graphic  touch,  true  to 
the  hfe.  They  were  now  approaching  the  spot  where  the  tomb 
was,  and  their  eyes  went  where  their  thoughts  were  already. 

rolled  back.  The  word  means  probably  that  it  was  '  not 
rolled  right  away,  but  rolled  back  so  as  to  leave  the  opening  free ' 
(Swete)  :  cf.  note  on  xv.  46. 

for  it  was  exceeding'  great.  This  is  added  to  explain  how 
they  were  able  to  see  the  stone  at  some  distance,  and  to  discern 
that  it  was  not  in  the  expected  position.  Mark  says  nothing  of 
the  earthquake  or  of  the  rolling  away  of  the  stone  by  '  an  angel 
of  the  Lord  '  which  Matthew  narrates  (xxviii.  2). 

5.  entering  into  the  tonib :  not  noticed  by  Matthew.  The 
Fourth  Gospel  reports  Mary  Magdalene  as  at  the  sepulchre  alone, 
and  gives  another  train  of  circumstances  (xx.  i-io).  Luke  agrees 
with  Mark,  and  adds  that  '  they  found  not  the  body  [of  the  Lord 
Jesus].' 

they  saw  a  young  man  sitting  on  the  right  side.  The 
'young  man  '  is  described  as  'an  angel '  by  Matthew.  Luke  says 
that  in  their  bewilderment  they  became  aware  of  '  two  men ' 
standing  by  them.  So  in  2  Mace.  iii.  26,  33  '  two  young  men  ' 
appear  to  Heliodorus,  and  are  described  as  '  splendid  in  their 
apparel.'  This  precedent  may  have  influenced  the  source  foUow^ed 
by  Luke. 

in  a  white  rohe.  A  long  robe  or  stole.  Matthew  says  of 
the  angel  that  '  his  appearance  was  as  lightning,  and  his  raiment 
white  as  snow'  (xxviii.  3)  ;  and  Luke  describes  the  two  men  as 
■  in  dazzling  apparel '  (xxiv.  4).  Cf.  the  Transfigured  Jesus  in 
Mark  ix.  3  and  parallels. 

amazed.  The  strong  word  which  was  used  also  in  ix.  15, 
xiv.  33,  for  awed  amazement.  Luke  describes  the  women  as 
'  affrighted  '  and  '  bowing'  down  '  their  faces  to  the  eartli.' 

G.  he  is  risen;  he  is  not  here.  So,  too,  in  effect  Matthew. 
Luke  reports  it  as  a  question,  '  Why  seek  j-e  the  living  among  the 
dead?'  and  the  angels  remind  them  of  the  Lord's  words  in 
Galilee  (ix.  44  ;  cf.  xviii,  33)  about  his  death  and  resurrection 
(xxiv.  6,  7). 


ST.  MARK  16.  7,  8.     Mk  437 

where  they  laid  him  !     But  go,   tell  his  disciples   and  7 
Peter,  He  goeth  before  you  into  Galilee :  there  shall  ye 
see  him,  as  he  said  unto  you.     And  they  went  out,  and  8 


behold,  the  place  where  they  laid  him  I  So  in  Matthew, 
'Come,  see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay.'  The  place  was 
empty  ;  the  body  was  gone  ;  that  is  the  thought  emphasized  here, 
and  more  elaborately  in  John  xx.  3-10. 

*1.  But  go,  tell  his  disciples.  They  are  not  to  linger  in  the 
wonder  and  rapture,  but  to  discharge  the  duty  ('go  quickly,' 
Matthew)  of  being  the  bearers  of  the  news  and  of  a  message  to 
Jesus'  disciples  generally. 

and  Peter.  The  special  reference  !o  Peter,  broken  down 
by  the  shock  of  his  own  denials,  as  well  as  by  the  death  of  his 
Master,  appears  only  in  Mark.  The  words  ma}' point  to  a  separate 
appearance  to  Peter  as  recorded  in  the  original  sequel. 

He  goeth  Toefore  you  into  Galilee.  A  repetition  of  words 
already  recorded  ( xiv.  28,  Matt.  xxvi.  32)  but  having  no  effect 
upon  the  disciples'  minds  or  conduct.  It  is  to  be  noted,  too,  that 
in  Matthew  (' Lo,  I  have  told  you')  there  is  no  allusion  (as  in 
Mark  and  Luke)  to  any  earlier  saying  to  this  effect,  while  in  Luke 
the  reference  is  simply  to  words  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  about  his 
death  and  resurrection.  All  this  suggests  that  the  tradition  on 
the  point  grew  up  in  the  Church's  tradition  gradually  (and  that 
Matthew's  other  source  had  no  such  reference  in  xxvi.  32). 

there  shall  ye  see  him,  as  he  said  unto  you.  The  latter 
clause  refers  back  to  xiv.  28.  From  the  former  clause  we  can 
liardlj'  infer  that  in  the  original  sequel  in  Mark,  now  lost  (see 
below),  there  was  only  one  resurrection  appearance  to  *  the 
disciples'  (including  Peter)  recorded,  as  is  the  case  in  Matthew; 
for  thus  far  Matt,  is  not  keeping  close  to  Mark's  narrative. 

8.  went  out,  and  fled  from  the  tomb.  The  word  '  fled,' 
along  with  what  follows,  conveys  a  totally  different  impression  of 
their  state  of  mind  from  that  implied  either  in  Matthew  or  Luke 
(let  alone  John  xx.  x8  in  the  case  of  Mary).  Luke  sa3's  nothing 
of  fear,  while  Matthew  qualifies  Mark's'  fear'  (not  named  at  all  in 
Matthew's  own  special  matter)  by  adding  '  and  great  joy.'  But 
'  trembling  and  astonishment'  is  all  that  Mark  attributes  to  the 
women  ;  and  it  is  emphasized  by  the  whole  verse,  which  ends 
'  for  they  were  afraid.'  This  points  to  a  radical  contrast  between 
the  Marcan  tradition  as  to  the  effects  of  their  visit  to  the  tomb 
upon  the  women,  and  their  conduct  as  reflected  in  the  other 
Gospels,  which  no  doubt  became  also  the  prevailing  tradition  in 
the  Church  generally  as  time  went  on  (j'et  with  some  variations, 


438  ST.  MARK  16.  8.     Mk 

fled  from  the  tomb;  for  trembling  and  astonishment  had 
come  upon  them  :  and  they  said  nothing  to  any  one ; 
for  they  were  afraid. 


e.  g.  the  account  in  John  xx.  i  ff.  of  the  first  visit  of  Mary 
Magdalene  alone  to  the  tomb,  and  her  report  '  They  have  taken 
away  the  Lord  out  of  the  tomb,  and  we  knovir  not  virhere  they 
have  laid  him  '). 

trembling  and  astonishment  had  come  upon  them :  rather 
'  possessed  them.'  '  Trembling,'  a  word  used  in  the  Gospels  only 
this  once.  '  Astonishment,'  //'/.  '  ecstasy,'  the  word  used  in  v.  42 
(as  also  in  Luke  v.  26;  Acts  iii.  10).  It  means  the  state  of  being 
out  of  one's  normal  mind,  being  'beside  oneself  from  any  over- 
mastering emotion ;  cf.  iii.  21.  So  it  may  mean  trance  (Acts  x. 
10,  xxii.  171  ;  but  also  any  condition  in  which  one  loses  control  of 
himself. 

and  they  said  nothing  to  any  one  ;  for  they  were  afraid. 
The  general  effect  of  this,  following  on  the  first  part  of  the  verse, 
is  that  they  lost  their  heads.  This  is  the  one  explanation  which 
to  Mark  could  account  for  what  his  tradition  told  touching  the 
action,  or  rather  inaction,  of  the  women  after  seeing  'the  empty 
tomb.'  For  the  very  emphatic  words,  *  and  to  no  one  did  they  say 
anything,'  are  too  strong  to  be  taken  other  than  absolutely,  i.  e. 
as  meaning  that  they  held  their  tongues  altogether  at  the  time, 
even  among  the  disciple  circle.  This,  be  it  noted,  is  how  the 
Gospel  according  to  Peter  took  the  verse  as  a  whole.  Perhaps  too  it 
had  the  sequel  in  Mark  before  it  (cf.  note  on  verse  10). 

But  is  such  silence  on  the  part  of  the  women  really  credible  ? 
Montefiore  states  the  case  quite  justly.  'That  the  occurrence  at 
the  tomb  should  fill  them  with  awe  and  fear  is  reasonable  enough  ; 
but  that,  when  they  joined  their  friends,  they  still  said  nothing 
seems  most  peculiar.  .  .  .  The  only  explanation  which  is  possible 
seems  to  be  that  it  was  known  that  the  disciples  were  unprepared 
for  what  they  saw  in  Galilee.  The  faith  in  the  risen  Messiah 
owes  nothing  to  the  discovery  of  the  emjity  tomb.  No  story  of 
the  empty  tomb  had  reached  the  apostles  when  that  faith  was  born 
within  them.  'The  empty  tomb'  story  grew  up  afterwards. 
Hence  it  had  to  be  explained  why  the  women  kept  silence ;  this  is 
done  as  well  as  might  be.'  Now  it  must  be  conceded  that  Paul's 
silence  in  i  Cor.  xv.  5  ff.  as  to  anything  of  the  kind  as  bearing  on 
the  faith  '  Jesus  is  risen,'  does  favour  such  a  view.  Mark's 
emphasis,  then,  on  the  women's  fear,  as  so  disabling  as  to  hinder 
their  carrying  out  their  commission  in  time  to  inform  the  disciples 
before  their  hurried  return  to  Galilee  (which  Mark  seems  to  imply, 
and  probably  went  on  to  relate),  would  be  the  first  form  which 


ST.  MARK  16.  8  439 

the  solution  of  the  difficulty  took.  Thereafter,  to  quote  Montefiore 
again,  '  when  the  story  of  the  empty  tomb  became  current  and 
accepted,  the  need  was  no  longer  felt  for  the  silence  of  the 
women,'  on  which  Mark  had  laid  such  stress.  '  Its  improbability, 
on  the  contrary,  became  felt.  Hence  the  change  in  Matthew  and 
Luke.'  But  this  involved  reference  in  turn  to  the  unbelief  of  the 
disciples  touching  the  zvonicn^s  testimony,  such  as  we  find  in  Luke 
xxiv.  lo  f.,  22-25,  in  Matthew  (in  a  partial  form  only,  in  xxviii. 
17),  and  in  the  appendix  to  Mark  (gff.)  which  we  have  jet  to 
examine. 

In  Montefiore's  statement  of  the  case,  however,  there  is  one  in- 
secure element,  viz.  the  assumption  that  because  'no  story  of  the 
empty  tomb  had  reached  the  apostles  '  before  '  the  faith  in  the 
risen  Messiah '  was  born  within  them  in  Galilee,  therefore  there 
was  no  such  story  to  tell,  and  that  the  whole  of  it  grew  up  after- 
wards. In  reality  another  possibility  remains  open,  namely  that, 
while  this  particular  story  of  the  empty  tomb  grew  up  afterwards, 
there  was  an  '  empty  tomb '  story  to  tell  from  the  first,  yet  such 
that  the  women  had  no  special  interest  in  being  in  anj'  hurry  to 
tell  it.  If  what  they  found  on  going  to  the  tomb  to  embalm  the 
body  of  Jesus,  after  its  all  too  hurried  burial  by  Joseph,  was  an 
empty  grave  and  nothing  more — no  angel  with  a  message  of 
reassurance  as  to  its  meaning,  and  no  commission  to  deliver  it  to 
the  disciples — then  they  may  well  have  stolen  away  in  silence, 
utterly  at  a  loss  what  to  think  of  it,  and  in  no  mood  to  hasten  to 
share  with  others  so  unwelcome  a  piece  of  intelligence.  Mean- 
time the  disciples  were  '  scattered.'  '  the  shepherd  '  having  been 
'  smitten  '  down  in  death,  and  were  making  for  Galilee  in  order  to 
escape  sharing  his  fate  ;  and  ere  the  three  women's  story  of  '  the 
empty  grave '  in  Joseph's  garden  reached  their  ears  in  Galilee, 
they  had  already  reached  by  personal  experiences  the  triumphant 
faith  that  Jesus  was  living,  and  was  therefore  risen  from  the  dead. 
It  would  be  only  later,  in  the  course  of  the  controversy  with 
Jewish  denial  of  the  Resurrection — as  based  on  those  first-hand 
experiences  of  Jesus'  personal  disciples,  especially  '  the  Twelve  ' 
and  the  larger  circle  of  'all  the  Apostles  '  (to  which  Paul  himself 
appeals  as  the  final  evidence  in  the  matter) — that  apologetic  use  was 
made,  as  in  the  Marcan  form,  of  the  women's  experience  of  '  the 
empty  tomb  '  and  the  angelic  witness  seated  therein.  To  this  the 
Jews  probably  replied  in  terms  of  the  explanation  'his  disciples 
came  by  night,  and  stole  him  away'  from  Joseph's  tomb  (Matt. 
xxviii.  13),  which  we  find  worked  into  the  special  episode  in 
Matt,  xxviii.  11-15,  embodying  an  answer  to  .^ny  such  suggestion. 
But  in  any  case  that  answer  seems  to  imply  the  fact  of  '  the  empty 
tomb' — a  point  which  the  Jews  could  (and  had  every  reason  to) 
disprove,  if  the  belief  itself  were  groundless.  Accordingly,  while 
the  angelic  vision  in  Mark's  story  of  '  the  empty  tomb'  can  fairly 


440  ST.  MARK  16.  8 

be  said  to  have  '  grown  up  afterwards,'  it  may  well  be  that  there 
was  from  the  first  a  story  of  Joseph's  emptj'  tomb,  as  seen  by 
the  women  (unlikely  to  be  invoked  as  witnesses,  rather  than 
men)  whose  names  and  object  in  visiting  it  Mark  recounts  so 
circumstantially  and  naturally  ;  and  that  the  disciples  nevertheless 
left  Jerusalem  without  receiving  word  of  it. 

Of  explanations  of  '  the  empty  tomb,'  on  such  a  theory,  the 
simplest  is  'that  Joseph  had  only  provisionally  put  the  body  in 
his  own  vault,  and  had  had  it  removed  to  another  resting-place 
before  the  visit  of  the  women  '  (Montefiore)  ;  but  that  knowledge 
of  this  did  not  exist  in  the  circles  in  which  the  present  stories 
of  the  fact  that  the  tomb  was  found  empty  by  the  women  assumed 
the  forms  in  which  they  appear  in  our  Gospels.  Of  course  all 
this  is  but  one  of  several  hypotheses  which  may  be  framed  to 
harmonize  the  conflicting  data  of  those  Gospels  touching  the 
matter :  but  the  same  is  true  of  any  account  which  faces  all  the 
facts  fairly  and  aims  at  reconstructing  from  them  a  consistent 
narrative. 

Whatever  the  ultimate  significance  of  the  above  representation 
of  the  women's  conduct  (which  John  xx.  i  ff.  qualifies  by  its 
account  of  Mary's  separate  case,  though  this  cannot  be  harmonized 
with  Mark's  account  of  her  as  one  of  the  panic-stricken  women), 
the  effect  of  the  Marcan  narrative  is  that  no  story  of  '  the  empty 
tomb '  had  reached  the  disciples  when  they  left  Jerusalem. 


What,  then,  was  the  sequel  in  the  original  text  of  Mark  ?  In 
Matt,  xxviii.  i6,  directly  after  the  matter  added  to  Mark  in  verses 
10-15,  there  comes  an  appearance  to  'the  eleven  disciples'  in 
Galilee  (cf.  i  Cor.  xv.  5),  on  '  the  mountain  where  Jesus  had 
appointed  them'  (though  no  mountain  had  been  referred  to  in 
the  foregoing  as  the  place  of  meeting).  This  appears  in  Matthew 
as  the  one  and  only  interview  between  the  risen  Jesus  and  his 
disciples,  and  as  the  occasion  of  their  missionary  commission  to 
'all  the  nations,'  '  until  the  consummation  of  the  Age.'  That  im- 
pression, of  course,  is  not  a  correct  one  in  view  of  i  Cor.  xv.  5-7, 
where  Paul  enumerates  five  appearances  (before  that  to  himself), 
beginning  with  one  to  Peter  and  including  two  to  the  twelve,  the 
latter  to  them  as  among  '  the  apostles,  one  and  all '  (i.  e.  those  at 
the  final  Commission).  But  the  interview  Matthew  gives  may  have 
been  regarded  by  its  author  as  the  fundamental  one  (as  well  as  the 
one  proper  to  the  local  tradition  its  compiler  habitually  used), 
typical  of  any  other  appearances  to  the  disciples  in  a  body,  and  so 
sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  completing  his  Gospel.  Matthew's 
account  corresponds  at  its  opening  most  nearly  to  the  second  of  the 
list  in  r  Cor.  xv,  that  to  'the  Twelve'  (less  Judas),  but  in  its 
latter  part  (18  ff.)  to  the  last,  'to  all  the  Apostles':  and   it  may 


ST.  MARK  16.  8  441 

well  be  that  the  two  became  fused  in  tradition  into  one  occasion 
(cf.  the  similar  fusion,  as  it  seems,  in  Luke  xxiv.  36  ff.,  where  both 
place  and  time  are  changed,  and  in  Mark  xvi.  14  ff.,  where  14  and 
15  ff.  cannot  belong  to  one  occasion).  Such  a  process  may  have 
gone  on  elsewhere,  and  may  help  to  explain  the  very  involved 
phenomena  of  the  various  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  as  found 
in  our  Gospels,  especially  as  none  records  as  many  (yet  cf.  John 
XX.  30)  as  those  distinguished,  in  time  though  not  in  place,  in 
Paul's  list,  which  is  far  the  oldest  evidence  of  all. 

Confining  ourselves,  however,  to  Mark's  Gospel,  which  alone 
concerns  us  here,  an  appearance  in  Galilee  to  the  disciples  is 
clearly  foreshadowed  in  verse  7,  and  is  so  far  borne  out  by  what 
Matthew  relates  of '  the  eleven  disciples.'  This,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  has  yet  earlier  support  in  the  fact  that  such  an  appearance 
stands  in  the  Pauline  list  as  the  first  to  a  body  of  disciples  col- 
lectively, though  therean  appearance  to  Peter  (see  below)  precedes 
it.  (As  to  whether  this  last  took  place  in  Galilee  or  in  Jerusalem, 
Paul  gives  no  hint.  The  reference  to  it  in  Luke  xxiv.  34  is  perhaps 
an  addition  due  to  i  Cor.  xv.  5.)  Luke's  Gospel  has  no  mention 
of  appearances  in  Galilee.  But  the  source  he  uses  seems  already 
to  have  confused  and  combined  two  appearances  to  apostles,  one 
in  Galilee  and  the  other,  a  final  one,  in  Jerusalem,  into  a  single 
interview  located  in  Jerusalem,  whence  the  Ascension  which 
follows  it  was  viewed  as  having  taken  place  (cf.  Acts  i.  8-13  and 
perhaps  also  the  Marcan  Appendix,  xvi.  14  ff.,  see  below).  In 
any  case,  even  though  an  appearance  to  Peter  happened  in  Galilee, 
before  one  to  the  Eleven  as  a  body,  this  would  no  doubt  be  only 
preliminary  to  the  record  of  one  or  more  to  the  Eleven,  as  fore- 
shadowed in  xvi.  7  and  implied  by  the  three  other  Evangelists 
(see  p.  443\ 

Accordingly  it  seems  best  to  picture  Mark's  Gospel  as  containing, 
like  our  Matthew,  an  appearance  to  '  the  Eleven  '  whom  Jesus 
had  speciallj'  trained  to  continue  his  work,  and  with  the  com- 
mission given  to  them  so  to  do.  The  description  of  that  inter- 
view and  its  commission  may  have  been  somewhat  different  in  the 
two  Gospels,  as  is  the  case  with  their  parallel  narrative  in  the 
earlier  part  of  this  chapter.  Matthew,  at  any  rate,  includes  in  his 
account  features  which  seem  to  belong  more  properly  to  the 
appearance  which  conveyed  the  final  commission  to  '  the  Apostles 
one  and  all,'  on  a  later  occasion,  according  to  the  Pauline  list: 
and  perhaps  the  original  Marcan  ending  already  did  the  like,  if  to 
a  lesser  degree,  unless  it  recorded  both  separately. 


Comparison  of  the  Resurrection  Narratives  in  the  Gospels. 

The   tendency  to  transfer  to  the  occasion  of  one   appearance 
sayings   else^vhere  found    in    connexion   with  another  marks  the 


442  ST.  MARK  16.  8 

Resurrection  traditions  generally,  in  different  circles.  Thus  the 
Apostolic  commission  in  Luke  is  assigned  to  an  appearance  in 
Jerusalem  (xxiv.  44-49\  which  apparently  is  treated  as  one  and 
the  same  with  the  first  to  'the  eleven  and  those  with  them' 
(33-43),  gathered  on  the  evening  of  the  Resurrection  day  itself 
(13  ff.).  Similarly  it  is  to  that  same  appearance,  on  the  evening 
of  the  first  Sunday,  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  assigns  the  Apostolic 
commission,  '  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit,'  &c.  (xx.  19-23) ; 
while  it  is  only  in  ch.  xxi,  which  seems  an  appendix  added  some- 
w^hat  later  to  the  completed  Gospel,  that  any  allusion  is  made  to 
an  appearance  in  Galilee,  described  as  '  the  third  time  that  Jesus 
was  manifested  to  the  disciples '  as  risen.  This  appearance  to 
Peter  and  six  other  disciples  is  perhaps  (as  Prof.  C.  H.  Turner 
has  argued  in  The  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  xiv.  i8iff.)  the 
basis  of  a  somewhat  similar  scene  in  The  Gospel  of  Peter,  at  the 
point  where  our  fragmentary  MS.  of  it  breaks  off  abruptly  ;  or 
its  account  may  be  based  on  local  tradition,  if  not  on  the 
original  sequel  to  Mark  xvi.  8.  But  the  fact  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  places  this  Galilean  appearance  only  after  two  in  Jerusalem, 
on  the  first  and  second  Sundays  following  the  Crucifi-xion,  shews 
how  different  are  the  types  of  tradition  touching  resurrection 
appearances  which  lie  behind  our  four  Gospels. 

Of  these  two  types  of  tradition — that  in  Matthew,  and  originally 
(as  has  been  argued)  in  Mark  also,  and  that  in  Luke  and  John  xx. 
—  the  superior  claim  of  the  former  or  Galilean  type  to  priority  is 
suggested  both  by  the  earlier  date  of  its  authorities  and  by  the 
internal  difficulties  implied  in  the  narrative  as  given  by  Luke's 
Gospel,  with  the  decisive  Apostolic  Commission  as  given  in 
Jerusalem,  apparently  on  the  first  appearance  of  all  (a  view 
withdrawn  by  Luke  in  Acts  i.  3\  As  regards  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
moreover,  the  special  case  of  the  Apostle  Peter  is  there  dealt 
with,  not  before  that  decisive  general  commission  (as  implied  by 
I  Cor.  XV.  5-7,  and  as  inherently  appropriate),  but  as  a  sort  of 
appendix ;  and  in  it  this  Galilean  episode  is  explicitlj'  assigned  a 
position  subsequent  to  the  two  Jerusalem  appearances  (xxi.  14), 
as  though  with  the  purpose  of  correcting  anotlier  conception  oi  m&\Xers 
as  between  the  two  types  of  tradition.  But  the  evidence  of 
Luke,  the  other  and  earlier  witness  to  the  same  type  of  tradition 
— which  makes  Jerusalem  rather  than  Galilee  the  scene  of  resur- 
rection appearances — first  claims  notice,  as  coming  nearer  in  date 
to  the  Marcan  Gospel. 

The  Lucan  evidence  exists  in  two  forms,  at  the  end  of  Luke's 
Gospel  and  at  the  opening  of  Acts  ;  and,  most  significantly,  the 
latter  tnodifies  the  imprfssinn  conveyed  by  the  former.  For  while 
Luke  xxiv  leaves  no  room  for  any  appearances  in  Galilee,  since 
it  places  its  single  one,  to  'the  Eleven'  and  their  companion 
disciples,  in  Jerusalem  and  on  tlie  night  of  the  first  Lord's  Day, 


ST.  MARK  1 6.  8  443 

it  is  othenvise  with  Acts  i.  2  ff.  The  secret  of  the  involved  and 
obscure  narrative  there  given  lies  probably  in  the  fact  that  its 
author  is  correcting  the  representation  contained  in  his  earlier 
account,  in  the  light  of  the  other  stream  of  tradition.  For  he 
([)  summarizes  what  he  had  there  described,  viz.  'the  day  in 
which  Jesus  \vas  received  up.  after  giving  commandment  to  the 
apostles  whom  he  had  chosen  '  ;  (2)  adds  that  *  he  also  presented 
himself  to  them,  'alive  after  his  passion,  by  many  sure  evidences, 
becoming  visible  to  them  at  intervals  over  forty  daj's,  and  speaking 
the  things  touching  the  Kingdom  of  God  '  ;  (3)  returns  to  the 
occasion  already  alluded  to  in  (i),  in  order  to  set  it  now  in  its  proper 
historical  perspective,  namely  as  following  on  the  whole  series  of 
occasional  appearances  alluded  to  in  (2)  but  ignored  in  Luke  xxiv. 
Accordingly  it  looks  rather  as  if  Luke,  already  when  he  wrote 
his  Gospel,  knew  Mark's  Gospel  without  its  true  ending  (see 
below"),  and  only  later  became  convinced  by  fresh  evidence,  oral 
or  written  (e.g.  by  Paul's  list  in  i  Cor.  xv),  of  appearances  other 
than  the  ones  he  records  in  ch.  xxiv  (see  Acts  i.  3).  Indeed 
Prof.  C.  H.  Turner  holds  strongly  {loc.  cit.,  p.  162)  '  that  the  First 
Evangelist'  also  'only  knew  the  Second  Gospel  as  we  know  it 
ourselves,  shorn  of  its  conclusion.'  And  this  seems  to  be  the  best 
view. 

If,  then,  the  original  conclusion  of  Mark's  Gospel,  in  proper 
historical  sequence  to  what  precedes  in  xvi.  1-8,  did  not  run  on 
lines  similar  to  those  of  Matt,  xxviii.  16  ff.,  can  we  infer  its  nature 
from  any  other  evidence?  Perhaps  we  can,  if  we  may  use  the 
fact  that  the  appearance  in  John  xxi  is  given  as  the  first  in  Galilee 
(^though  'the  third'  in  all,  relative  to  the  two  assigned  to  Jeru- 
salem, V.  14).  There  Jesus  appears  quite  unexpectedly  (contrast 
Matt,  xxviii.  16)  to  Peter  and  a  small  group  of  fellow  disciples  (so 
in  'the  Gospel  of  Peter',  but  with  other,  perhaps  only  two, 
comrades  named),  not  to  the  Eleven  Apostles  as  a  body.  If  this 
was  the  case  in  the  immediate  sequel  to  Mark  xvi.  8,  we  have  at 
once  a  strong  reason  for  its  suppression,  as  inconsistent  with  what 
was  now  becoming  the  dominant  tradition,  which  Matthew  em- 
bodies, in  favour  of  an  expected  and  formal  first  appearance  in 
Galilee  to  the  Eleven.  Next,  the  appearance  in  John  xxi  was  under 
conditions  admitting  of  '  eating  and  drinking  '  (cf.  Acts  x.  41)  with 
the  risen  Jesus  vv.  9-13),  as  likewise  in  Luke  xxiv.  42,  where 
too  the  'broiled  fish'  suits  the  Lake-side  better  than  Jerusalem, 
and  so  points  back  to  a  more  original  form  of  underlj'ing  tradition. 
On  such  lines,  then,  we  may  best  conceive  the  setting  of  the 
original  Marcan  tradition  as  to  the  first  appearance  of  the  risen 
Jesus  to  his  disciples  in  Galilee,  as  foreshadowed  in  xvi.  7. 
But  there  was  also,  no  doubt,  more  concrete  detail  of  the 
Marcan  t3^pe  associated  with  this,  descriptive  in  the  main  of  the 
disciples'  lack  of  faith  then  as  before,  perhaps  also  of  a  humiliating 


444  ST.  MARK  16.  8 

confession  on  Peter's  part  and  his  restoration  by  the  Master 
(John  xxi.  15  ff.,  esp.  verse  17,  may  preserve  an  echo  of  it). 
This  in  turn  would  be  followed  by  a  meeting  with  the  Eleven, 
where  their  slowness  of  belief  in  the  Resurrection  was  verj' 
faithfully  set  forth.  Here  was  matter  which  a  growing  sentiment 
in  the  Church  (especially  in  Anlioch,  cf.  the  local  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  e.g.  xvi.  i7fi'.)  preferred  to  pass  over  in  silence.  Such 
suppression  of  its  closing  paragraphs  seems  the  only  adequate 
explanation  of  the  abrupt  ending  of  Mark's  Gospel  just  at  the 
point  where  it  breaks  off.  The  hypothesis  of  accidental  loss  of 
the  end  of  the  MS.  roll  which  contained  it  will  hardly  do  ;  still 
less  Allen's  suggestion  that  this  Gospel  alwaj's  ended  thus,  seeing 
that  an  Aramaic  original  (for  which  he  argues)  cou'.d  close  with 
'  for  they  were  afraid  '  without  stylistic  impropriety,  such  as  tells 
against  it  as  a  concluding  clause  in  Greek.  The  difference  of 
treatment  in  the  case  of  Matthew  in  spite  of  its  clash  with  the  first 
two  written  forms  of  the  other  tradition,  that  appearance  to 
Apostles  took  place  in  Jerusalem  (Luke  and  John),  was  probably 
due,  not  so  much  to  supposed  direct  apostolic  authorship  as  to  the 
fact  that  this  Gospel  did  not  clash  as  sharply  as  Mark,  but  softens 
even  its  reference  to  the  first  doubts  of  Apostles  bydistinguishing 
among  those  who  on  the  mountain  'worshipped'  certain  onlj' 
who  '  stood  in  doubt.' 

That  the  above  suppression  of  the  original  ending  of  Mark's 
Gospel  took  place  very  early,  in  fact  possibly  even  before  it  had 
been  used  by  the  author  of  Matthew  and  had  in  local  opinion  been 
superseded  by  this  fuller  and  more  edifying  account  of  the  words 
as  well  as  deeds  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  is  probable  from  the  very 
fact  that  no  copy  containing  this  ending  has  left  any  direct  trace 
in  subsequent  tradition.  Further,  that  the  fresh  ending  in  our 
Mark  xvi.  9  ff.,  composed  mainly  on  the  lines  of  Luke's  two 
Evangelic  narratives,  was  not  added  directly  after  the  loss  of  the 
original  one,  is  proved  by  the  absence  of  xvi.  g  ff.  from  the  most 
ancient  of  our  authorities;  while  certain  others  contain  a  much 
briefer  alternative  ending.  To  the  details  of  these  phenomena  we 
now  proceed. 


Later  endings  to  Mark's  Gospel. 

(a)    The  Longer  Ending :  xvi.  9-20. 

These  last  verses  of  the  traditional  text  followed  b}'  the  A.V.  are 
absent  from  our  oldest  copies  (the  earliest  form  of  the  Old  Syriac, 
the  Old  Latin    MS.  >&,  Origen,  Eusebius,  our  two  fourth  century 


ST.  MARK  16.  9-20  445 

Greek  MSS.,  Jerome,  and  others:  see  Westcott  and  Hort.  The 
N.  T.  in  Greek,  ii.  45,  for  the  evidence  in  full).  Moreover,  in  the 
MSS.  containing  'the  shorter  ending'  (,b),  .the  longer  ending, 
where  it  exists  at  all  (not  in  /t\  follows  on  the  shorter,  so 
suggesting  that  the  latter  originally  stood  alone  in  certain  regions, 
as  the  supplement  to  make  good  an  obvious  defect  in  the  text 
hitherto  current  there.  The  longer  ending  is  in  fact  a  mosaic 
made  up  of  materials  from  various  sources,  some  of  which  we  can 
trace  with  assurance,  some  more  doubtfully.  The  former  include 
Luke's  two  writings  in  particular.  Its  secondary  nature  appears 
also  from  the  lack  of  continuity  with  what  precedes  both  in 
contents  and  in  style,  in  which  it  contrasts  strongly  with  the 
Marcan  Gospel  as  a  whole. 

A  notable  and  seemingly  very  early  feature  of  this  Appendix, 
as  it  has  been  called,  is  its  emphasis  on  the  disbelief  0/  the  disciples 
towards  the  reports  of  those  who  had  seen  the  risen  Jesus — a 
feature  elsewhere  most  characteristic  of  Luke's  Resurrection 
narratives.  This  note  recurs  in  all  the  three  paragraphs  here 
recording  appearances.  In  this  it  goes  far  bej-ond  what  even 
Luke  sajs  :  see  ir,  13,  14.  This  fact  is  of  moment  for  the  stand- 
point and  motive  of  its  author  in  adding  the  section  ;  his  interest, 
that  is,  reveals  itself  as  being  didactic  rather  than  historical.  As 
Sir  A.  F.  Hort  saj-s,  he  shews  a  strong  desire  '  to  point  a  moral ' 
(e.g.  'and  he  upbraided  them'^.  And  this  moral  seems  to  be 
that  unhesitating /(?!?//  in  the  Gospel  of  the  risen  Jesus — shewn  by 
his  resurrection  activity  to  be  'the  Lord  '  (^  verse  19)  of  humanity — 
is  incianhent  on  all  who  hear  that  Gospel  on  the  basis  of  his  original 
witnesses  (cf,  16),  a  moral  found  also  in  John  xx.  ^9. 

This  Appendix  on  Resurrection  Appearances  of  Jesus,  recounted 
in  a  definite  order,  is  in  fact  far  more  peculiar  in  its  contents  and 
conception  than  appears  at  first  sight.  It  seems  a  mere  summary 
of  what  we  are  familiar  wilh  (for  the  most  part  in  more  detail)  in 
the  other  Gospels  :  but  on  closer  inspection  it  is  found  to  depart 
from  all  of  them  savo  Luke  at  important  points,  while  it  goes 
beyond  what  we  find  in  any  one  of  them  in  certain  respects, 
notably  for  the  last  of  the  appearances.  There  the  features 
additional  to  the  nearest  parallel,  that  in  Matt,  xxviii.  16-20 
(though  the  occasion  is  given  as  different,  viz.  'as  they  sat  at 
meat,'  as  in  Luke  xxiv.  36,  42,  not  on  a  Mount  in  Galilee),  imply 
the  use  of  independent  tradition,  oral  or  written.  They  are 
probably  akin  to  the  original  ending  of  Mark,  though  divorced  now 
fiom  its  Galilean  setting,  as  in  the  Lucan  type  of  tradition.  But 
if  non-canonical  tradition  be  here  the  source  of  the  matter  parallel 
to  Matthew's  narrative,  then  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  such 
tradition  may  be  the  supplemental  source  throughout,  if,  as  we 
shall  see,  there  are  disagreements,  as  well  as  agreements,  with 
both  Matthew  and  John  in  the  matter  additional  to  Luke.     The 


446  ST.  MARK   16.  9-20 

only  real  point  of  contact  with  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  in  the  words 
'  he  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene  '  (contrast  Matt,  xxviii. 
gf.,  verses  which  are  ignored,  if  indeed  known)  ;  and  it  is  followed 
by  a  description  of  this  Mary  in  terms  of  Luke  viii.  a  alone, 
whereas  in  John  xx  it  is  assumed  that  she  is  a  well-known  figure 
in  the  Church.  This  phenomenon  points  to  an  earlier  date  for  our 
Appendix  than  that  of  John  xx,  or  at  any  rate  loan  author  whose 
mind  shared  the  Lucan  way  of  looking  at  things.  But  further, 
while  verses  10  f.  are  close  to  Luke  xxiv.  1 1  as  regards  the  hope- 
less and  unbelieving  attitude  of  the  disciples,  they  are  out  of 
accord  with  John  xx.  2-10,  18.  Probably,  therefore,  they  repre- 
sent an  earlier  stage  of  the  tradition  (perhaps  in  the  same  region) 
of  a  special  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  than  that  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

As  to  origin,  Westcott  and  Hort  {The  N.  T.  in  Greek,  ii.  47-51) 
argue  that  this  paragraph  was  not  written  specially  for  its  present 
position,  but  that  '  a  scribe  or  editor,  unwilling ...  to  add  words 
of  his  own  '  to  the  abrupt  ending  left  by  the  loss  of  all  after  xvi. 
8,  '  was  willing  to  furnish  the  Gospel  with  what  seemed  a  worthy 
conclusion  by  incorporating  with  it  unchanged  a  narrative  of 
Christ's  appearances  after  the  Resurrection  which  he  found  in 
some  secondary  record  then  surviving  from  a  previous  generation  ' 
(p.  51).  As  the  paragraph  was  known  already  as  part  of  Mark's 
Gospel  to  Irenaeus,  and,  as  it  seems,  to  Tatian  also  (c.  170) — if 
not  also  to  his  teacher  Justin — this  would  carry  back  its  first 
composition  to  well  before  150,  and  most  likely  to  Ephesus ;  and 
if  the  Acts  of  Pilate,  too,  knew  it  in  the  same  way,  its  date  as  part 
of  Mark  may  well  be  yet  earlier.  But  those  who  are  not  convinced 
that  'the  opening  words  of  verse  9,  Now  when  he  was  risen  early, 
without  Jesus  or  any  other  name,  imply  a  previous  context,'  other 
than  Mark  xvi.  1-8,  are  the  freer  to  seek  not  only  as  early  a  date 
of  origin  as  this,  but  one  even  within  the  first  century,  especially 
if  verses  11  and  14  may  be  viewed  as  excluding  any  use  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (see  notes  there). 

On  this  shewing,  there  is  no  definite  reason  to  question  the 
ascription  of  this  appendix  to  Ariston,  found  in  the  margin  of  an 
ancient  MS.  of  the  Armenian  version  of  the  Gospels  (see  Intro- 
duction, §  13).  Arist(i)on,  as  a  primitive  'disciple  of  the  Lord,' 
would  be  the  sort  of  man  to  have  both  the  traditional  knowledge 
to  add  to  Luke's  information,  presupposed  above,  and  the  authority 
enabling  him  to  supply  a  fresh  conclusion  to  Mark's  Gospel  with 
acceptance  in  some  local  church,  such  as  Ephesus  ;  and  thence  it 
would  gradually  spread  into  wider  currency  (being  added  to  the 
shorter  ending  (^b),  where  that  was  already  current  as  the  local 
supplement :  see  below). 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  Appendix  seems  best  accounted  for  on 


ST.  MARK  16.  9,  lo  447 

[  a  Now  when  he  was  risen  early  on  the  first  day  of  9 
the  week,  he  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  from 
whom  he  had  cast  out  seven  ''devils.     She  went  and  10 

*  The  two  oldest  Greek  manuscripts,  and  some  other  authorities, 
omit  from  verse  g  to  the  end.  Some  other  authorities  have  a  different 
ending  to  the  Gospel.  *•  Gr.  demons 

the  theory  that  it  was  constructed  primarily  on  the  basis  of  Luke 
among  our  Gospels,  by  some  one  using  also  non-canonical  traditions 
(e.g.  like  that  known  to  Papias,  cf.  18  a)  at  very  much  the  stage 
represented  by  Matt,  xxviii.  16-20  (which  also  deals  with  'the 
Gospel' in  practice)  and  prior  to  that  represented  by  John  xx. 
Further,  while  Dr.  Hort's  view,  that  it  was  adapted  from  another 
writing,  has  much  to  commend  it  (though  it  would  be  strange  that 
the  fact  was  not  observed  and  noted  in  any  early  Father),  it  may 
not  be  needful,  when  we  take  into  due  consideration  that  this 
compiler  may  have  come  to  his  task  of  supplying  a  proper  ending 
with  a  mind  full  of  the  Resurrection  idea  generally,  rather  than 
fresh  from  a  perusal  of  Mark  xvi.  1-8  and  aiming  to  carry  on  its 
line  of  narrative.  So  he  takes  up  the  story  of  the  Appearances, 
which  was  lacking  in  Mark  as  it  lay  before  him,  at  the  same  point 
of  time  as  that  already  referred  to  in  Mark  xvi.  2,  Luke  xxiv.  i  — on 
which  had  followed  only  indirect  witness  to  Jesus  as  risen.  This 
witness  he  treats  as  introductory  to  Jesus'  own  appearances,  the 
idea  of  which  so  possesses  his  mind — as  one  familiar  also  to  those 
for  whom  he  was  writing — that  he  omits  to  specify  the  subject  of 
the  opening  clause  and  writes,  '  Now  having  risen  early  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  He  (cf.  "The  Lord  Jesus''  in  verse  19) 
appeared  first  .  .  . '  The  author  may  be  Arist(i)on,  writing 
c.  75-90- 

xvi.  9-1  r.  Appearance  of  the  Risen  Lord  to  Mary  :  his  disciples' 
unbelief  {zL  John  xx.  ir-i8,  Luke  xxiv.  11). 

9.  Now  when  he  was  risen  early  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  Note  the  lack  of  formal  continuity  with  the  foregoing 
narrative,  as  well  as  the  absence  of  any  expressed  subject  of 
'  appeared  '  (see  above  for  its  possible  explanation). 

he  appeared.  The  word  here  used  of  the  appearance  of  the 
Risen  Jesus  is  one  found  nowhere  else  in  the  N.T.  in  this  con- 
nexion. In  Luke  (xxiv.  34)  and  in  Paul  (^i  Cor.  xv.  5,  &c.)  the 
word  used  is  one  meaning  '  was  seen.' 

first  to  Mary  Magdalene.  Compare  John  xx.  11  ff.  But  this 
is  inconsistent  not  only  with  Mk.  xvi.  8,  but  also  with  Matthew 
(xxviii.  9  f.),  which  therefore  was  probably  unknown  to  the  writer. 

from  whom  he  had  cast  out  seven  devils  (or  '  demons  '). 
This  deliverance  is  noticed  only  by  Luke,  at  an  earlier  stage  in  his 


448  ST.  MARK  16.  11-13 

told  them  that  had  been  with   him,   as   they  mourned 
Ti  and  wept.     And   they,   when  they  heard    that    he  was 

alive,  and  had  been  seen  of  her,  disbelieved. 
13      And  after  these  things  he  was  manifested  in  another 

form  unto  two  of  them,  as  they  walked,  on  their  way 
13  into  the  country.     And  they  went  away  and  told  it  unto 

the  rest :  neither  believed  they  them. 

narrative  (viii.  2^.  Here  it  betrays  another  hand  than  Mark's, 
since  this  Mary  has  already  been  referred  to  (xv.  40,  47  ;  xvi.  i) 
without  any  such  description. 

10.  them  that  had  been  with  him:  an  expression  unparalleled 
in  the  foregoing  narrative,  and  corresponding  most  to  what  we 
find  in  Luke  xxiv.  19,  33.  The  phrase  'mourning  and  weeping' 
(cf.  Luke  vi.  25;  Rev.  xviii.  11,  15,  19)  occurs  in  The  Gospel  of 
Peter  7,  which  may  borrow  it  from  this  passage  (rather  than  vice 
versa)  or  from  a  source  common  to  both.  There  is  no  basis  for  the 
idea  in  John  xx.  18.     But  it  is  of  a  piece  with  ideas  in  ri,  13,  19. 

11.  had  been  seen  of  her.  Tlie  word  for  'seen'  here  used 
occurs  now  here  in  the  body  of  Mark's  Gospel,  though  it  is  found 
twice  (see  verse  14)  in  this  Appendix.  It  is  an  expressive  word 
like  our  '  behold,'  used  several  times  in  a  profound,  solemn  sense 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (e.  g.  John  i.  14,  32  ;  cf.  1  John  i.  i,  iv.  12,  14). 

they  .  .  .  disbelieved.  So  Luke  reports  that  the  things  told 
the  Apostles  by  the  women  'appeared  in  their  sight  as  idle  talk  ; 
and  they  disbelieved  them  '  (xxiv.  i  r)  :  and  this  is  transferred  here 
to  the  report  of  Mary  also.  It  ill  accords  with  the  disciples' 
attitude  in  John  xx.  20,  as  contrasted  with  Luke  xxiv.  37  f. 

xvi.  12,  13.  Appearance  to  tivo  of  the  disciples:  unbelief  of  the 
rest  (=  Luke  xxiv.  13-35% 

12.  after  these  thing's  he  was  manifested.  The  word  used 
here  and  in  verse  14  for  'manifested,'  appears  in  Mark  iv.  22,  also 
in  John  xxi.  14  :  cf  Barnabas,  xv.  9. 

in  another  form.  Pie  was  so  altered  as  not  to  be  recognized 
at  first  (Luke  xxiv.  16). 

on  their  way  into  the  country :  to  '  a  village  named 
Emmaus,'  as  Luke  puts  it  (xxiv.  13). 

13.  neither  believed  they  them.  The  same  result  as  before. 
Luke  docs  not  say  so  (indeed  v.  34  in  his  present  text  implies  the 
contrary')  :  and  so  it  is  probable  that  other  tradition  is  being 
drawn  on. 

xvi.  14-18.  Appearance  to  the  Eleven  (cf  Luke  xxiv.  36-43; 
Matt,  xxviii.  16-20).    '  The  paragraph,'  to  the  end,  'seems  to  be 


ST.  MARK  16.  14  449 

And  afterward  he   was   manifested   unto   the   eleven  14 
themselves  as  they  sat  at  meat ;  and  he  upbraided  them 
with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they 
believed  not   them   which  had  seen  him  after  he  was 


a  summary  of  the  various  narratives  within  the  writer's  knowledge 
which  spoke  of  appearances '  (Swete)  to  '  the  Eleven.'  Here  we 
see,  only  in  a  greater  degree,  that  fusing  of  appearances,  or 
features  special  to  such,  which  was  noted  above  as  found  in  our 
Gospels  themselves.  As  Sir  A.  F.  Hort  observes,  the  charge 
(15-18)  agrees  generally  with  that  recorded  in  Matt,  xxviii.  16-20, 
but  is  obviously  not  taken  from  it.  The  circumstances,  'as  they 
sat  at  meat,'  conflict  with  Matthew's  meeting  on  'the  mountain  ' 
in  Galilee,  agreeing  more  with  Luke  xxiv.  41-3,  and  John  xx.  19. 
14.  Here  again  we  have  special  affinity  with  Luke,  but  along 
with  a  certain  difference  as  regards  the  unbelief  of  '  the  eleven,' 
which  is  once  more  described  as  unbelief  towards  those  who  had 
seen  Jesus.     The  scene  seems  still  to  be  Jerusalem. 

as  they  sat  at  meat.  This  agrees  in  effect  with  the  narrative 
of  Luke,  which  states  that  Jesus  took  a  piece  of  broiled  fish  (which 
suggests  the  Lake  of  Galilee  as  the  original  scene)  and  ate  it 
before  the  Eleven  :  yet  it  goes  beyond  Luke  in  the  next  sentence. 

upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of 
heart :  rather  '  reproached  their  unbelief.'  The  verb  used  implies 
a  stronger  sort  of  censure  than  that  elsewhere  attributed  to  Jesus 
in  relation  to  the  disciples. 

becaiise  they  believed  not  them  which  had  seen  him  after 
he  was  risen  :  cf.  11,  13.  This  has  no  real  parallel  in  our  Gospels 
in  spite  of  Luke  xxiv.  38,  41.  In  John  xx.  25-29  '  the  doubt  is 
impersonated  in  Thomas  alone  '  (Menzies),  as  distinct  from  his 
brother  disciples  as  a  body  (cf.  Matt.)— a  distinction  which  our 
compiler  could  hardly  have  ignored  had  he  known  of  it.  As  it  is, 
he  seems  unembarrassed  by  the  unbelief  of  the  Apostles  as  such, 
but  treats  it  rather  as  a  typical  instance  of  human  '  unbelief  and 
hardness  of  heart,'  like  that  against  which  he  goes  on  to  record 
the  Lord's  warning  in  v.  16,  addressed  to  all  who  may  hear  the 
Gospel  of  the  Risen  Saviour. 

But,  as  time  went  on,  the  disciples'  unbelief  exercised  the  mind 
of  the  sub-apostolic  Church  a  good  deal,  and  it  became  softened 
down  as  in  Matthew  and  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Later  on  still  the 
effort  was  made  to  supply  some  apology  for  what  seemed  the 
strange  fact,  in  men  such  as  the  Apostles.  Jerome  tells  us  that 
there  was  'in  certain  MSS.,  especially  Greek  ones,'  an  insertion 
after  the  above  words  which  he  quotes  in  part  ;  and  the  full 
text  of  it  has  recently  come  to  light  in  an  early  Greek  MS.  (the 


450  ST.  MARK  16.  15,  1 6 

15  risen.     And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 

16  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation.     He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;    but  he  that 

'Freer'  MS.  W,  of  the  fifth  or  sixth  century).  '  And  they  began 
to  excuse  themselves,  saying,  "  This  Age  of  lawlessness  and 
unbelief  is  under  Satan,  who  by  the  agency  of  the  unclean  spirits 
suffereth  not  the  true  power  of  God  to  be  apprehended  (so  Jerome  ; 
or  "  the  truth  of  God  to  take  to  itself  power").  Therefore  reveal 
forthwith  thy  righteousness."  So  said  they  to  the  Christ.  And 
the  Christ  addressed  them,  saying,  ''  The  limit  of  the  years  of 
Satan's  authority  is  already  completed  ;  but  there  are  at  hand 
other  dread  things,  even  for  those  on  behalf  of  whom  in  their  sin 
I  was  delivered  unto  death,  in  order  that  they  might  turn  unto  the 
truth  and  no  lon^iersin,  that  the^'  might  inherit  the  spiritual  and 
incorruptible  glory  of  righteousness  in  heaven."  ' 

This  insertion,  which  is  in  a  different  style  from  our  appendix 
itself,  is  almost  certainly  taken  from  some  early  second  century 
Christian  writing  (compare  the  use  of  tlie  '  Preaching  of  Peter  ' 
in  the  Shorter  Ending,  below).  When,  however,  we  consider  its 
contents  closely,  it  becomes  doubtful  whether  the  subject  of  this 
Apostolic  '  apology  '  in  its  original  context  i, before  insertion  in 
the  Appendix  to  Mark)  was  their  own  unbelief,  so  much  as  the 
difficulty  '  the  truth  of  God '  had  in  gaining  power  over  men's 
minds  under  the  conditions  of  the  present  evil  'age'.  In  fact 
this  was  probably  their  excuse  for  not  going  forth  to  preach  the 
Gospel  in  their  Master's  name  '.the  idea  of  the  Preaching  of  Peter, 
which  may  thus  be  the  actual  source  of  the  words  here  adapted 
to  a  rather  different  use). 

15.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  ci-eation.  The  rebuke  passes 
into  a  commission,  with  a  strange  abruptness  which  suggests  a 
fusion  of  different  traditions  ;  and  this  is  largely  paralleled  by  Luke 
xxiv.  38  45  and  46-9.  Further,  during  Jesus'  earthly  ministry  the 
commission  of  the  Twelve  had  been  limited  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel,  S.amaritans  and  Gentiles  lying  outside  its 
scope  (Mark  vii.  27,  Matt.  xv.  24).  The  commission  to  the 
Apostles  now  obtains  enlargement  (cf.  xiii.  10) :  cf.  Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  'Go  ye,  then,  and  disciple  all  the  Nations.' 

preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole  creation :  rather  '  to  all 
mankind,'  according  to  a  Jewish  usage  of  the  term  '  creature  ;'  so 
Didache,  xvi.  5,  'Then  the  creation  of  men  shall  come  unto  the 
fire  of  testing,'  and  Pirke  Aboth,  i.  13,  'be  .  .  .  loving  mankind' 
(lit.  'the  creatures').  For  the  idea  of  'preach  the  Gospel' to 
'all  the  world,'  cf.  Mark  xiv.  g,  as  well  as  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

16.  He  that  helieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.     For 


ST.  MARK  16.  17,  18  451 

disbelieveth  shall  be  condemned.     And  these  signs  shall  i-^ 
follow  them  that  believe :  in  my  name  shall  they  cast 
out  *  devils ;  they  shall  speak  with  ^  new  tongues ;  they  18 
shall  take  up  serpents^  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing, 

*  Gk.  de7?io:!S  ^  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  new 

the  thought,  cf.  Acts  ii.  38-41  ;  for  the  phrasing,  Acts  xvi.  31  ; 
also  Rom.  x.  9.  For  the  negative  aspect  which  follows,  '  he  that 
disbelieveth,'  cf.  John  iii.  18.  '  It  was  probably  this  idea  [i.  e. 
belief  and  unbelief]  which  in  the  writer's  mind  made  the  con- 
nexion between  15-18  and  what  has  preceded'  (Sir  A.  F.  Hort). 

1*7.  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  toelieve.  The  promise 
has  the  widest  extension,  to  all  believers,  not  only  to  teachers  or 
to  the  Eleven.  The  powers  in  question  were  to  be  'signs,'  con- 
firming their  word  and  work,  cf.  v.  20.  For  the  word  '  signs,' 
cf.  xiii.  22,  and  for  the  idea,  Acts  iv.  30,  v.  12. 

in  my  nam.e  shall  they  cast  out  devils  (or  '  demons ')  :  cf. 
iii.  16,  '  to  have  authority  to  cast  out  demons.'  '  In  my  name  '  here 
is  equivalent  to  'authorit3''  there  :  cf.  the  use  of  Jesus'  name  as 
'authority'  in  the  case  also  of  the  Seventy  in  Luke  x.  17-19. 
Others,  too,  who  were  not  declared  disciples  of  Jesus,  had  been 
seen  casting  out  demons  'in'  his  'name '(Mark  ix.  38).  The 
Book  of  Acts  records  the  exercise  of  such  power  by  Philip  in 
Samaria  (viii.  7)  and  by  Paul  at  Philippi  (xvi.  18,  cf.  xix.  15). 

they  shall  speak  with  [newj  tongues.  The  word  'new,' 
which  is  of  considerable  importance  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
gift,  is  of  uncertain  authority.  If  genuine,  it  would  mean  the 
same  as  'other'  tongues  in  Acts  ii.  4,  and  probably  in  the  sense 
there  defined  in  verses  6  ff.,  referring  to  foreign  languages.  But 
there  the  meaning  was  originally  (as  Peter  implies  in  verses  15-18) 
a  sort  of  ecstatic  or  rapt  utterance,  a  spontaneous  language  of 
emotion  (as  in  Cor.  xii.  19,  xiv) ;  and  so  probably  here  also. 
'  Speaking  with  tongues  '  is  first  heard  of  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
(Acts  ii.  4-11),  and  again  in  the  cases  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends 
(Acts  X.  46)  and  of  certain  disciples  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  6). 

18.  shall  take  up  serpents.  Compare  the  case  of  Paul  at 
the  island  called  Melita,  our  Malta  :^Acts  xxviii.  5%  So  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  given  the  Seventy  '  authority  to  tread  upon  serpents 
and  scorpions,  and  over  all  the  power  of  the  enemy '  (Luke  x.  19). 

if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  in  no  wise  hurt 
them.  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  recorded  in  the  N.  T.  But  there 
was  a  famous  case  current  in  sub-apostolic  tradition,  which 
reached  the  early  writer  Papias  through  '  the  daughters  of  Philip 
the  Apostle  '  (see  Philip  of  Side,  who  is  fuller  than  Eusebius  iii. 
39  in  his  report  of  the  whole  matter",  that  Barsabas,  '  called  Justus 


452  ST.  MARK  16.  19 

it  shall  in  no  wise  hurt  them ;  they  shall  lay  hands  on 
the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover. 
19      So  then  the  Lord  Jesus,  after  he   had  spoken  unto 
them,  was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  down  at  the 

(Acts  i.  23),  when  put  to  the  test  b^'  unbelievers,  drank  snake's 
poison  in  the  name  of  the  Christ  and  was  preserved  scatheless.' 
The  circumstances  of  this  event  exactly  suit  the  context  in  which 
the  present  allusion  to  such  *  signs  '  occurs, 

they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick.  The  Apostles  received 
power  for  healing  the  sick  from  Jesus  during  his  ministry  (e.  g. 
vi.  13).  The  'Gifts  of  healing'  are  referred  to  both  by  Paul 
(i  Cor.  xii.  9,  28)  and  in  James  v.  14,  15.  In  the  Book  of  Acts, 
too,  we  read  of  them  in  v.  12,  ix.  12,  xxviii.  8. 

xvi.  19,  20.  The  Ascension  ;cf.  Luke  xxiv.  53  ;  Acts  i.  3-12  ; 
see  also  Rom.  viii.  34  ;  Heb.  viii.  i  ;  i  Pet.  iii.  22). 

19.  So  then  the  Iiord  Jesus.  This  designation  '  the  Lord 
Jesus'  occurs  frequently  in  Acts,  e.g.  i.  21,  iv.  33,  and  is  used  at 
times  by  Paul  (e.g.  i  Cor.  xi.  23,  xvi.  23).  This  is  the  only 
distinct  occurrence  of  it  in  tlie  Gospels,  the  case  in  Luke  xxiv.  3 
being  very  doubtful  (see  R.  V.  margin).  It  is  an  early  type  of 
phrase,  and  favours  a  fairly  early  date  for  this  Appendix  {c.  a.  d. 
80-100). 

after  he  had  spoken  unto  them :  i.  e.  immediately  after  he 
had  spoken  the  words  recorded  in  the  preceding  verses.  For  the 
conception  is  most  probably  derived  from  Luke  xxiv.  51,  Acts 
I.  9,  where  that  is  the  case.  The  verse  is  referred  to  by  Irenaeus, 
c.  180  {Against  Heresies^  iii.  10.  6),  as  part  of  the  end  of  Mark's 
Gospel. 

was  received  up  into  heaven:  cf.  Luke  xxiv.  51.  This  is 
the  only  occurrence  in  the  Gospels  of  the  word  here  rendered 
'received  up.'  It  is  used  again  of  the  Ascension  in  Acts  i.  2,  11, 
22  (cf.  I  Tim,  iii.  16),  whence  it  was  perhaps  adopted.  In  the 
fuller  account  given  in  the  Third  Gospel  we  are  told  how  Jesus 
led  the  disciples  out  '  until  they  were  over  against  Bethany  ; '  and 
how,  while  he  was  in  the  act  of  blessing  them,  he  '  parted  from 
them  and  began    to   be    carried    up   into   heaven '   (Luke   xxiv. 

50,  50- 

and  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God :  rather  '  on  the 
right  side '  (see  below).  Here  our  author,  as  Swcte  says, '  passes 
beyond  the  field  of  history  into  that  of  Christian  theology.  The 
belief  that  the  risen  and  ascended  Ciirist  ' '  sits  "or  "  stands  "  at  the 
Right  Hand  of  God  is  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  cherished  of 
Christian  ideas  (Rom.  viii.  34,  Col.  iii.  i,  Eph.  i.  20;  Heb.  i.  3, 
viii,  I,  X.  la,  xii.  2  ;  i  Pet.  iii.   22,  Rev.  iii.  21),  , , ,  and  it  is  not 


ST.  MARK  16.  3o  453 

right  hand  of  God.     And  they  went  forth,  and  preached  20 
everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them,  and  confirming 
the  word  by  the  signs  that  followed.     Amen.] 

unlikely  that  the  writer  has  adopted  here  a  primitive  formula ; ' 
compare  the  creed-like  hymn  quoted  in  i  Tim.  iii.  16,  '  was 
received  up  in  glory.'  Acts  ii.  34  f.,  David  '  himself  saith,  The 
Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I  make 
thine  enemies  the  footstool  of  thy  feet '  (the  fulfilment  of  which, 
Peter  argues,  proves  '  that  God  hath  made  both  Lord  and  Christ 
this  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified '),  shews  both  the  source  and  the 
very  early  Christian  use  of  this  conception  (cf.  Heb.  i.  13).  It 
may  indeed  have  been  suggested  by  Jesus'  own  application  to 
himself  of  the  very  passage  (Psalm  ex.  i)  there  cited,  on  two 
memorable  occasions,  explicitly  in  xii.  36,  and  virtually  in  xiv.  62 
(comp.  *  on  the  right  side  of  the  Great  Power'  in  the  mouth  of 
James,  in  Hegesippus,  ap.  Eus.  ii.  23  :  see  Luke  i.  11,  xxiii.  33, 
Acts  ii.  25,  Matt.  xx.  21,  23,  xxv.  33  f.,  for  the  Biblical  or  Jewish 
Christian  nature  of  the  idea,  apart  from  the  particular  phrase). 

The  exact  Greek  of  the  Psalm,  i.e.  'on  the  right  side,'  rather 
than  '  at  the  right  hand  '  (as  in  the  Epistles),  recurs  here,  as  also 
in  Acts  vii.  55  f.,  the  earliest  use  of  the  whole  phrase  other  than 
in  quotation  ;  and  it  is  that  of  the  earliest  Creed-like  uses  of  the 
phrase,  e.g.  Polycarp  To  the  Philippians,  ii.  i,  'having  given  him 
glory  and  a  seat  (throne)  on  the  right  side  .  .  .  who  is  coming  as 
judge  of  living  and  dead.'  So  also,  rather  significantly,  in  the 
Jewish  Christian  Ascejtsion  of  Isaiah,  probably  off.  a.  d.  68-100  : 
'Thou  (the  Lord  Christ)  shall  ascend  in  glory  and  sit  down  on 
My  right  hand  side  '  (x.  14).  Two  early  MSS.  substitute  '  at  the 
right  hand '  in  our  verse,  probably  because  this  became  in  time 
the  more  usual  phrase  in  creeds. 

20.  they  went  forth,  and  preached :  the  same  phrase  as  in 
vi.  12.  Not,  however,  at  once,  as  the  words,  if  they  stood  alone, 
might  mean.  It  is  a  summary  statement,  no  doubt  meant  to  cover 
what  the  writer  knew  from  the  Book  of  Acts,  where  the  Apostles 
were  instructed  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  until  they  should  receive 
'  the  promise  of  the  Father,'  the  gift  of  (the)  Holy  Spirit,  and  where 
they  did  wait  as  they  had  been  told  (Acts  i.  4,  12,  &c.). 

everywhere  :  the  outlook  of  Acts  and  the  later  Apostolic 
Age.  So  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  42,  '  the  Apostles  .  . .  went  forth 
preaching  as  Gospel  (lit.  '  Evangelizing ')  that  the  Kingdom  of 
God  was  about  to  come.'  Justin  Mart3'r,  Apology,  i.  45,  seems 
actually  to  use  our  passage  :  '  From  Jerusalem  the  Apostles  went 
forth  and  preached  everywhere.' 

the   Iiord  workiug^   with  theiu  :    i.  e.  '  the  Lord  Jesus '  of 


454  ST.  JNIARK  16.  20 

verse  19.  The  idea  is  that  of  Acts  i.  i.  '  What  Jesus  began  to 
do  and  to  teach,'  until  his  own  ministry  ended,  was  carried  on 
through  his  'Apostles,'  as  recorded  in  Acts. 

confirming'  the  word.  This  term  '  confirming  '  occurs  no- 
where else  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  used  repeatedly',  however,  in 
the  Epistles  (Rom.  xv.  8  ;  i  Cor.  i.  8  ;  2  Cor.  i.  21  ;  Col.  ii.  7  ; 
Heb.  xiii.  9).  The  most  striking  parallel,  both  in  form  and  idea, 
is  Heb.  ii.  3f.,  where  the  author  refers  to  the  Christian  'Salva- 
tion, which,  having  at  the  first  been  spoken  through  the  Lord, 
was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard,  God  also  bearing 
witness  with  them,  both  by  signs  and  wonders  and  by  manifold 
powers.'  This  passage,  if  not  actually  in  our  writer's  mind,  at 
least  bears  out  by  its  similarity  of  idea  the  early  date  of  so  kindred 
a  piece  of  writing. 

(b)   The  Shorter  Ending. 

'  But  all  that  had  been  enjoined  they  reported  concisely  to 
Peter  and  his  companions  Jt't.  "those  about  Peter").  And  after 
these  things  Jesus  himself  also  appeared  to  them,  and  from  East 
even  to  West  sent  forth  through  them  the  sacred  and  incorruptible 
proclamation  of  eternal  salvation.' 

Thisendingoccurs  in  four  uncial  MSS.rangingfrom  the  seventh  to 
the  ninth  century,  the  Old  Latin  k,  and  tlie  marginofthe  Harclean 
Syriac,  besides  some  copies  of  the  Egj'ptian  and  Ethiopic 
Versions.  The  addition  once  concluded  the  Gospel  in  some 
region,  as  is  implied  by  the  Anicn  at  its  close.  Its  language  has 
striking  affinities  with  the  Homily  known  as  2  Clement,  which 
dates  from  about  a.  d.  120-30,  and  hails  possibly  from  Alexandria. 
Here,  then,  we  may  imagine  the  Shorter  Ending  as  originating 
some  time  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  before  the 
Longer  Ending  \vas  known  there,  though  later  it  also  came  to  be 
added  to  the  shorter  one  as  anotlier  current  supplement  (so  in 
the  four  uncial  MSS.  referred  to  above).  Westcott  and  Hort 
{Notes,  p.  44)  observe  that  its  author  '  completed  the  broken 
sentence'  in  verse  8  '  by  a  summary  of  the  contents  of  St.  Luke 
xxiv.  9-12,  and  the  Gospel  by  a  comprehensive  sentence  suggested 
probablj'  by  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  Luke  xxiv.  47.'  Tliis  is  true  as  far  as  it 
goes.  But  there  is  a  i'lirther  possibility,  or  rather  probability,  that  the 
suggestion  of  the  final  comprehensive  sentence  came  immediately 
from  an  apocryphal  writing  dealing  with  'the  Proclamation' 
{Kerygma)  entrusted  by  the  Risen  Christ  to  '  Peter  and  his 
circle,'  viz.  the  so-called  *  Preaching  (/i'f>3'^;;;rt^  of  Peter  '  (already 
referred  to  in  connexion  with  an  insertion  after  verse  14),  a  piece 
of  missionary  propaganda  composed  c.  J 20-30,  and  that  the 
sentence  is  largely  in  terms  of  this  writing.  The  authorities  for 
this  Ending,  and  its  style,  both  point  to  an  origin  in  Alexandria. 


INDEX 


Abrahams,  I.,  83,  92,  140,  287. 

336  f.,  &c. 
Ages,'  the  two,  91.  93  f.,  loi. 
Alexander  and  Rufus,  6,  421. 
Allen,  W.  C,  19,  151,  &c. 
Antioch   and    Mark's    Gospel, 

36  ff. 
'Apocalypse,  the  Little,'  349  ff. 
Apocah-ptic,     45  f,     54,      roi, 

128  ff.,  348  ff. 
Apostles,'  197,  cf.  148. 
Appendix  to  Mark,  444  ff. 
Aramaisms,  in   Mark,  21,  27  f, 

34.  36,  88,  104,  425  f. 
Arist(i)on,  43.  446  f. 
[Ascension  of  Jesus],  452  f. 

Bacon,  B.  W.,   11,  14,  19,  37, 

42,  S:c. 
Banus,  86. 

Baptism,  John's,  81  ff.,  98,  368. 
—  of  Jesus,  88-95. 
Bath-Qol,  92. 
Beelzebub,  152. 
Bethany,  31T,  316,  372. 
Bethsaida,  205  f ,  244. 
'  Blessed,  The,'  407. 
Blindness,  245. 
Bradley,  W.  S.,  252  ff. 
Brethren  of  Jesus,  157. 
Bruce,  A.  B.,  30,  48,  &c. 
Burkitt,  F.  C,  31,  66,  138,  144, 

286,  325,  &c. 

Caesarea  Philippi,  the  crisis  at, 

24,  48,  64,  247. 
Capernaum,  106. 
Catechcsis,  15,  17,  102, 
Charles,  R.  H.,  93,  &c. 


Chief  priests,  250,  320,  401  ff. 
Christ,  see  Messiah. 
Christians,  their  lot,    15,  38  f., 

255,  353  ff- 
Christology  of  Mark,  45  ff. 

Christs,  false,  352,  360. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  10,  35. 

Corban,  218  ff. 

Covenant,  the,  388. 

Cross,  255,  422  f. 

—  bearing  of,  255,  422. 

—  forms  of,  423. 
Cup,  304,  384-7. 

Dalmanutha,  241. 

Decapolis,  178. 

Demon,  history  of  word,  115. 

Demoniacal     possession,     108, 

113  f. 
Denney,  J.,  22  n.,  &c. 
Didache,  The,  see  leaching. 
'  Disciples,'  105. 
Divorce,  287  ff. 

Edersheim,  Dr.,  passim. 
Enoch,  Book  of,  128,  &c. 
Eschatology     in     Mark,    41  L, 

347  ff- 

—  in    Tesus'    mind,    65  f.,   259, 
349  ff.,  368  f. 

Essen  es,  85  f. 
'  Eternal,'  155  ff.,  293. 
Eusebius  of  Cassarea,   9  f.,  41, 
passim. 

Fasting,  134  ff. 
Father,  as  name  of  God,  323. 
Feedings,    the    two,    204,   236, 
238  ff. 


456 


ST.  MARK 


Fire,  unquenchable,  283  f. 

Flesh,  the,  396. 

Food  as  '  defiling,'  221  ff. 

Galilee,  98  f. 

—  sea  of,  103. 
Gennesaret,  208. 
Geography  in  St.  Mark,  37,  52. 
Golgotha,  422. 

Gospel,  use  of  word,  75,   77  f., 
99  f. 

—  and  the  Gospels,  11  ff. 

—  in  Isaiah,  76  f.,  79  f.,  &c. 
Gospel  ace.  to  the  Hebrews,  90, 

142,  293. 

—  0/ Peter,  5,  435,  438,   442  f., 
448. 

Halachah,  213,  215  ff. 

Hawkins,  Sir  J.  C,  95,  (Sec. 

Healings,  95,  235, 

Heart,  224. 

Hell,  283. 

Hermon,  Mt.,  247,  260. 

Herod  Antipas,  192  ff.,  243. 

—  Philip,  194. 
Herodiaiis,  144,  329. 
Hippolytus,  5,  37. 
Historicity  of   Mark's    Gospel, 

50  ff 
Holy  One  of  God,  109 
Holy  Spirit,  87,  355. 

—  descent  on  Jesus,  91. 

—  blasphemy  against,  155. 
Hort,  Sir  A.  F.,  199,  26B,  445, 

449)  451)  &c. 
Hosanna,  314  f. 

Idumsea,  146. 

Immortality,    Jewish  views  of, 

333  f- 
Irenaeus,  6,  10,  35,  41  f.,  [452]. 
Iscariot,  151. 


Jerusalem,  fall  of,  348,  356  ff. 
Jesus,     as     God's 
laff.,  25. 


Evangelist, 


Jesus,  as  Messiah,  12  f.,  32,  44, 

57,  78,9of-,249,  314^-)  34^  f-, 
407  f. 

—  his  '  Messianic  Secret,'  55  f. 

—  Appearances  of,  440  ff. 

—  [Ascension  of],  452  f. 

—  Baptism  of,  88  ff. 

—  -  Betrayal  of,  376. 

—  limited    knowledge  in,    no, 
341,  365  f. 

—  Passion,  see  s.  v. 

—  Resurrection  of,  438  ff. 

—  Temptation  of,  75  ff. 

—  Transfiguration  of,  264  ff. 

—  Trial,  402!',  414. 

John  the  Baptist,  16,  39,  75  f., 
81  ff.,  193 ff.,  269. 

—  the  Apostle,  105,  150,  &c. 

—  the  Presbyter,  9,  36. 
Josephus,  83,  passim. 
Judaism  and  the  Gospel,  136  ff., 

2or  ff.,  226  ff. 

—  in  our  Mark,  14,  52  f.,  212  ff. 
Judas  Iscariot,  151,  376  f.,  399. 
Justin  Martyr,  10,  [453]. 

Kennett,  R.  H.,  386,  388,  390. 
Kiddiish,  381  ff. 
King  of  the  Jews,  415,  423. 
Kingdom  of  God,  14  f.,  24  f.,  56, 
^3)  66,  76 ff.,  89,  100 f.,  &c. 

Latinisms,  27,  38,  419,  429. 

Law,  the,  210  ff.,  290,  336  f. 

Leprosy,  118. 

Levi,  130  f. 

Life,  eternal,  155  ff.,  256,  293, 

299. 
Luke,  his  Preface,  18  n.,  40. 

—  sources  of,  19. 

Mark,  person  and  author,  6ff. 

—  relation  to  Peter,  6-1 1,  52. 

—  relation  to  Paul,  6-8,  40, 164. 

—  as  eye-witness,  7,  379  f.,  401. 

—  Gospel  of,  nature  and  value, 
3  f.,  66  ff 


INDEX 


457 


Mark,  ancient  testimonies,  4-6. 

—  sources,  i6ff. 

—  plan  and  method,  24  f. 

—  language  and  style,  27  ff. 

—  characteristics,  29  ff, 

—  compass  and  contents,  23  f. 

—  date,  41  f. 

—  destination,  34  ff.,  345. 

—  'realism,'  30  f.,  48. 

—  aim,  38  ff. 

—  integrity,  42  f. 

—  ending's,  43  f.,  444  ff. 

—  not  a  biography,  47,  yet  see 
67  f. 

—  not  '  history  '  proper,  50. 

—  its  historical  setting,  52  ff. 

—  psychological  data,  64  ff. 

—  relations  to  Matthew  and 
Luke,  25  ff.,  66  ff. 

—  Literature  on,  68 f. 
Matthew,  his  Logia,  9,  18. 
Medicine,  Jewish,  113,  192. 
Menzies,  Dr.,  38,  113  f.,  &c. 
Messiah,  see  Jesus. 
'Messianic  Secret,' 55!. 
Meyer,  E.,  22  n. 

Miracles,  108,  1230.,  179,  i8i, 
185  f.,  188  f.,  202  ff.,  207  f., 
274  f. 

Montefiore,  C.  G.,  226  ff.,  &c. 

Moses  as  type  of  Christ,  264  f. 

'Most  High  God,'  175. 

Moulton,  J.  H.,  27  f.,  &c. 

'  Mountain,  the,'  147. 

Muratorian  Canon,  10. 

Mystery,  162 

'  Name,'  use  of  term,  278  f. 
Nazarasans,  90. 
Nazareth,  88. 

Oil,  anointing  with,  192. 
Olives,  mount  of,  311,  390. 

Papias,  4,  Bff,  35  f.,  304. 
Parable,    Jesus'    use    of,    153, 
158  ff. 


Parousia,  347  f. 

Passion,  the,  13,  39,  49  f  ,  58  ff., 

249,  302. 
Passover,  370. 
Peter,  behind  our  Mark,  8- 11, 

17,  21,  38  f. 

—  Epistle  of,  38  f. 

—  The  Gospel  of,  5,    130,   442, 
448. 

—  The  Preaching  o/,  450,  454. 
Pharisaism,    52  ff.,    135,  210ft., 

218 ff,  226 ff.,  326 f. 
Pharisees,  132  f.,  241  f. 
Philo,  92. 
Pilate,  414  {. 
Prsetorium,  420. 
Preaching,  12  f. 
Predestination,  162  ff. 
Preparation,  the,  431. 
'  Publicans,'  131  f. 

0,  its  nature,  19  ff. 

Ransom,  306 ff.,  388 f. 
Repentance,  81  f 
Resurrection,  doctrineof,252ff., 

334  f- 
Riches,  295  ff. 

Rome,  and  Mark's  Gospel,  34  ff. 

Sabbath,  138  ff". 

Sacrifices,  339. 

Sadducees,  332  f. 

Salt,  284  ff. 

Sanday,  W.,  58-60. 

Satan,  95  ff.,  153. 

Scribes,  124. 

Septuagint,  Mark  quotes  from, 

34- 
'Servant    of    Jahweh,'    560., 

.327- 
Sign  from  heaven,  242. 
Sin,  eternal,  155. 
Sins,  remission  of,  82f.,  123  fl., 

.154^-,  323- 
Sisters  of  Jesus,  181. 
Son  of  David,  340  ff. 


458 


ST.  MARK 


Son  of  God,  40,  45  f.,  56,  58, 

[75])  93,  91,  263,  365  f;  407  f. 

—  ofman,  6iff.,   iz-j  S ,   i4of., 
258,  362  f. 

—  of  the  Blessed,  46,  407. 

—  of  Most  High  God,  175. 
Soul,  256. 

Spirit,  the  (Holy),  87,  91  f. 

—  blasphemy  against,  155. 
— •  descent  of,  on  Jesus,  91  f 
Spittle,  use  of,  237,  245. 
Streeter,  B.  H.,  19,  21. 
Supper,    Last,    date  of,    369  f., 

378  ff. 
Swete,  Dr.  H.  B.,  passim. 
Synagogue,  106  f. 
Synoptic  Problem,  the,  19  ff. 


Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
191,  201,  215,  315,  363,  387. 
Temple,  purging  of,  57,  3186. 
'  Third  da}',  the,'  252  ff. 
Torah,  see  Law. 


Tradition,    the    Gospel,    14  ff., 
284. 

—  Apostolic,  16,  44  f.,  47  f.,  52, 
55,  69,  102,  &c. 

—  'of  the  elders,'  213  ff. 
Treasury,  344. 
Tribute,  329  f. 

Turner,  C.  H.,  301,  442  f. 
'Twelve,  the,"  148  f.,  189  f. 

'  Unleavened  bread,  the,'  369  f. 

Washings,  ceremonial,  210  ff. 
Watches  of  the  night,  206,  368. 
Weiss,  J.,  41,  44,  46-50. 
Wellhausen,  21  n. 
Women    in  the  Gospel,  374  f., 

431- 
Wood,  H.  G.,  passim. 
World  to  come,  see  Ages. 

X,  the  nature  of,  i9ff.,  102. 

Zealot,  151, 


PETNTED   IN   GREAT   BRITAIN   AT 
THE  PRESS  OF  THE  PUBLISHERS. 


I 


UNIVERSIl  Y  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

t'K 

IhM) 

n 

* 

V 

35m-8.'71  (P634784)-C-120 

d 


